It is the other direction of left.
It is the other direction of left.
Lol I did see this coming
Lol I did see this coming
Might makes right
Might makes right
The opposite of a left
The opposite of a left
A "right" doesn't exist in nature. It's not a physical thing or object. Therefore a "right" is a concept or an idea. A right is a claim that a human makes to an action or set of actions. When a human makes a claim about a "right" he/she is/are stating that they are able to engage in that particular action or set of actions and no other human will be justified in stopping them from engaging in that that action or set of actions.
Since the concept of a "right" is not something that exists in nature (like a tree, or a river, or a rock) a right could be considered as a type of fiction.
When rights are "granted" or "acknowledged" via government documents that would be an example of a fictional organization recognizing a fictional "right".
But one could also make the argument that rights are naturally vested within humans. I personally believe this. But I think it would be a difficult claim to make in a world focused on empiricism.
A "right" doesn't exist in nature. It's not a physical thing or object. Therefore a "right" is a concept or an idea. A right is a claim that a human makes to an action or set of actions. When a human makes a claim about a "right" he/she is/are stating that they are able to engage in that particular action or set of actions and no other human will be justified in stopping them from engaging in that that action or set of actions.
Since the concept of a "right" is not something that exists in nature (like a tree, or a river, or a rock) a right could be considered as a type of fiction.
When rights are "granted" or "acknowledged" via government documents that would be an example of a fictional organization recognizing a fictional "right".
But one could also make the argument that rights are naturally vested within humans. I personally believe this. But I think it would be a difficult claim to make in a world focused on empiricism.
How can we have a "right" when other humans are still capable of acting in opposition to it?
If rights naturally exist they would have to exist OUTSIDE mankind's agreement. In other words, they would have to exist in a way as if they had been programmed or built right INTO the fabric of nature itself. But they would not be written or recorded by nature using words or an alphabet. It would be the duty and responsibility of each man and woman to discover these "rights" for themselves through observation and personal experience.
It's an interesting concept.
I believe we do have rights, and I believe they are built right into the fabric of nature. But I don't think this is something I would be able to "prove" to anyone.
How can we have a "right" when other humans are still capable of acting in opposition to it?
If rights naturally exist they would have to exist OUTSIDE mankind's agreement. In other words, they would have to exist in a way as if they had been programmed or built right INTO the fabric of nature itself. But they would not be written or recorded by nature using words or an alphabet. It would be the duty and responsibility of each man and woman to discover these "rights" for themselves through observation and personal experience.
It's an interesting concept.
I believe we do have rights, and I believe they are built right into the fabric of nature. But I don't think this is something I would be able to "prove" to anyone.
If I stick my hand in a squirrel nest, and invade it's home. Does it not have the right to bite me for my own aggression or stupidity?
If I stick my hand in a squirrel nest, and invade it's home. Does it not have the right to bite me for my own aggression or stupidity?
I don't think it cares at all whether you think it has a right to bite you, it either will or it won't.
I don't think it cares at all whether you think it has a right to bite you, it either will or it won't.
Truth is subjective. It either is or it isn't. Doesnt matter what anyone, you I or the squirrel thinks. It either has he right to defend it's home or it doesn't
Truth is subjective. It either is or it isn't. Doesnt matter what anyone, you I or the squirrel thinks. It either has he right to defend it's home or it doesn't
I feel like I understand what you are saying. But I don't see it as a "right". It's just a naturally expected reaction that we would be wise to forsee and therefore avoid.
I feel like I understand what you are saying. But I don't see it as a "right". It's just a naturally expected reaction that we would be wise to forsee and therefore avoid.
Temporary privileges granted by authority
Temporary privileges granted by authority
From the Holy Ghost.
From the Holy Ghost.
A right is God given, but what exactly is it?
A right is God given, but what exactly is it?
What is a right?
It's all very much semantics and legal interpretation. There are "natural" laws, there are "mans" laws, and there are "religious/Gods" laws. Laws are what comes from the interpretation of "rights".
Think of "right of way" as it pertains to traffic. What does "right" mean in the context "of way"? It means that the entity holding the legal status of "right of way" is entitled to first action in the situation - to pull out, to waive action by allowing the other traffic to pass/move, etc.. Common sense should prevail, but the legal idea is that one entity in this context has the first decision action.
Those are "man's" law which is (or was meant to be) a compendium of rules that we could then refer back to in case of disagreement or injury. Most were based off of "Gods" law as interpreted at the time: no killing, no stealing, no lying, etc..
But I digress.
> What is a right?
It's all very much semantics and legal interpretation. There are "natural" laws, there are "mans" laws, and there are "religious/Gods" laws. Laws are what comes from the interpretation of "rights".
Think of "right of way" as it pertains to traffic. What does "right" mean in the context "of way"? It means that the entity holding the legal status of "right of way" is entitled to first action in the situation - to pull out, to waive action by allowing the other traffic to pass/move, etc.. Common sense should prevail, but the legal idea is that one entity in this context has the first decision action.
Those are "man's" law which is (or was meant to be) a compendium of rules that we could then refer back to in case of disagreement or injury. Most were based off of "Gods" law as interpreted at the time: no killing, no stealing, no lying, etc..
But I digress.
MIGHT is right. There are no 'natural' rights.
MIGHT is right. There are no 'natural' rights.
Whatever you can claim , and enforce
Whatever you can claim , and enforce
If you're asking about natural rights, they are rights that we all possess. And all rights are property rights. Let me explain.
Natural rights are derived from the principle of self-ownership. First, you own your body and your mind because you have exclusive control over them. You were the first person to have that control and without mind-control devices, you can't surrender that control to someone else. Anyone to "take" control of your body without your consent would be violating your rights since you had ownership of your mind and body from the start and did not agree to give it away.
Accepting that you own yourself, you also own the things that you either appropriate from nature that no one else owned first, or that you received in a voluntary exchange with another person.
Your natural rights, therefore, are the right to be free of coercion from others against your person and your property.
All rights are property rights.
Where do they come from? They are just a concept and don't really exist, but I would argue that 99% of people agree that you have them, even if they say they don't agree. If you ripped the shirt off of their back or kicked them out of their house, they would say you stole from them. Even if a communist wouldn't just say, "well, we all own it together so I can't complain!".
Likewise, most people agree that harming other people, except in self-defense or in the defense of others, is wrong. Some people don't agree with that, e.g., sociopaths, which is why we own guns and put those creatures into cages, so that they don't hurt anyone else.
So basically, these natural rights come from a mutual agreement among the overwhelming majority of people who want to live peaceful lives, not harming other people and not taking or destroying their stuff.
When I say "mutual agreement", I am not referring to any kind of social contract. There is none. That mutual agreement is just inherent to the way we, as social animals, normally operate.
If you're asking about natural rights, they are rights that we all possess. And all rights are property rights. Let me explain.
Natural rights are derived from the principle of self-ownership. First, you own your body and your mind because you have exclusive control over them. You were the first person to have that control and without mind-control devices, you can't surrender that control to someone else. Anyone to "take" control of your body without your consent would be violating your rights since you had ownership of your mind and body from the start and did not agree to give it away.
Accepting that you own yourself, you also own the things that you either appropriate from nature that no one else owned first, or that you received in a voluntary exchange with another person.
Your natural rights, therefore, are the right to be free of coercion from others against your person and your property.
All rights are property rights.
Where do they come from? They are just a concept and don't really exist, but I would argue that 99% of people agree that you have them, even if they say they don't agree. If you ripped the shirt off of their back or kicked them out of their house, they would say you stole from them. Even if a communist wouldn't just say, "well, we all own it together so I can't complain!".
Likewise, most people agree that harming other people, except in self-defense or in the defense of others, is wrong. Some people don't agree with that, e.g., sociopaths, which is why we own guns and put those creatures into cages, so that they don't hurt anyone else.
So basically, these natural rights come from a mutual agreement among the overwhelming majority of people who want to live peaceful lives, not harming other people and not taking or destroying their stuff.
When I say "mutual agreement", I am not referring to any kind of social contract. There is none. That mutual agreement is just inherent to the way we, as social animals, normally operate.
And to address other so-called "rights", voting is not a right, being allowed to enter any establishment even if they don't want you there due to your race or religion is not a right, and free speech is not a "right". These are legal privileges granted by the government.
The only place where you truly have "free" speech is on your own property or on the property of someone else who allows you to speak freely.
I could go on forever about rights because if people actually understood what they were, instead of having this vague half-definition, half-fiction in their heads, they might actually understand why government is not the solution, but is the main problem and the reason why everything sucks.
And to address other so-called "rights", voting is not a right, being allowed to enter any establishment even if they don't want you there due to your race or religion is not a right, and free speech is not a "right". These are legal privileges granted by the government.
The only place where you truly have "free" speech is on your own property or on the property of someone else who allows you to speak freely.
I could go on forever about rights because if people actually understood what they were, instead of having this vague half-definition, half-fiction in their heads, they might actually understand why government is not the solution, but is the main problem and the reason why everything sucks.
(post is archived)