[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Or think about it a little differently: That I’m not a slave and can’t be enslaved by my neighbor–this means that the state grants me such a legal right, not, necessarily, that it protects a natural right.
[/quote]
The state doesn’t “grant” you that right it merely safeguards it. Someone else granted it to you.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Or think about it a little differently: That I’m not a slave and can’t be enslaved by my neighbor–this means that the state grants me such a legal right, not, necessarily, that it protects a natural right.
[/quote]
The state doesn’t “grant” you that right it merely safeguards it. Someone else granted it to you.[/quote]
God?
That’s quite an extraordinary claim. It would need to be bolstered by quite a bit of extraordinary evidence–not just of God, but that God exists, that he granted me rights, and that among those rights are the freedom not to be enslaved.
For that which we can say “this exists,” we can produce convincing evidence of its existence.
Where is the convincing evidence of the existence of a natural right?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
When a child is born, he has life. If another human kills him, he has taken that right.[/quote]
How did we get from “child is alive” to “child has a right to not be killed?”[/quote]
In order to kill someone, another has to act to violate that person’s right to life. That’s a natural and apparent fact.[/quote]
But you’re assuming that the person has a right to life. Where did their right to life come from?[/quote]
The right to life comes from being born.
I can’t remember which poster it is who has mentioned the negative vs. positive rights issue before, but he is correct.
When trying to decide whether Y’s right to Z is being violated, it is probably best to ask yourself, “Would the actor be willing to give up Z before taking Z from Y?” If the answer is ‘no,’ then the actor is certainly violating Y’s right.
-Would X be willing to let Y kill him before killing Y? Pretty obvious answer, huh?
-Would X be willing to give _____ to Y before taking _____ from Y? Pretty obvious answer, huh?
-Would X allow Y to enslave him before enslaving Y? Pretty obvious answer, huh?
A just government is formed to PROTECT those rights; at the second it begins violating them, it becomes tyrannical.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
When a child is born, he has life. If another human kills him, he has taken that right.[/quote]
How did we get from “child is alive” to “child has a right to not be killed?”[/quote]
In order to kill someone, another has to act to violate that person’s right to life. That’s a natural and apparent fact.[/quote]
But you’re assuming that the person has a right to life. Where did their right to life come from?[/quote]
The right to life comes from being born.[/quote]
Proof?
Stop right there.
Before we talk about Y’s right to Z being violated, show me that Y has a right to Z.
A natural right.
If I am to accept your argument that X exists, you must be able to evidence X.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
When a child is born, he has life. If another human kills him, he has taken that right.[/quote]
How did we get from “child is alive” to “child has a right to not be killed?”[/quote]
In order to kill someone, another has to act to violate that person’s right to life. That’s a natural and apparent fact.[/quote]
But you’re assuming that the person has a right to life. Where did their right to life come from?[/quote]
The right to life comes from being born.[/quote]
Proof?
Stop right there.
Before we talk about Y’s right to Z being violated, show me that Y has a right to Z.
A natural right.
If I am to accept your argument that X exists, you must be able to evidence X.[/quote]
Like I said, it is probably better to say that nobody else has a right to Y’s Z. Z exists; shouldn’t the onus be on you to show that X has a legitimate claim to Y’s Z? I see no way that X will not be the initiator of force in attempting to claim Y’s Z.
Y is living. Y Z’ing does violate X’s rights. Y possesses Z by virtue of either having first claimed it(mixed his labor with) or by having taken possession of Z by way of voluntary transaction with W.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
The right to life comes from being born.
[/quote]
How so?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I see no way that X will not be the initiator of force in attempting to claim Y’s Z.[/quote]
You keep skipping the point. Who says X can’t initiate force? Who says anyone has a right to life? Where do natural rights come from?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Like I said, it is probably better to say that nobody else has a right to Y’s Z. Z exists; shouldn’t the onus be on you to show that X has a legitimate claim to Y’s Z? I see no way that X will not be the initiator of force in attempting to claim Y’s Z.[/quote]
I agree that nobody has a “right” to Y’s Z.
Because I am saying that nobody has a natural right to anything*.
Which means that Y doesn’t have a “natural right” to Z either.
*Or, rather, there isn’t any reason to believe that a natural right exists. If I am wrong, show me evidence of such a natural right.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But you still haven’t proved to me that I have a right not to be.[/quote]
The fact that if you were to be, you would still know what freedom was does though.
No, because the concept of freedom doesn’t disappear if the State stops protecting you.
[quote]In which case, my state grants my girlfriend the legal right to have an abortion. Am I to assume that you believe such to be a natural right?
[/quote]
Nope. The state grants your girlfriend the ability to put “control of her body and its contents” ahead of the child’s natural rights. (Which can and will be argued is wrong.) However it is what it is.
Similar to self defense. Party A attacks Party B. Party B has a right to defend itself. In doing so, it violates the right to life of Party A. Some (most) will say that A forfeits their rights upon trying to violate Party B’s life. So abortion goes:
Party A is growing inside of Party B. Party B has a right to control her property (her body). In doing so, she violates the right to life of Party A. Some will say that A isn’t a person so has no rights to violate.
Let’s try this another way:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Where is the convincing evidence of the existence of a natural right?[/quote]
What color is the sky on a typical day?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But you still haven’t proved to me that I have a right not to be.[/quote]
The fact that if you were to be, you would still know what freedom was does though.[/quote]
What? If I were enslaved, I would not want to be. This is proof that freedom from slavery is a natural right?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But you still haven’t proved to me that I have a right not to be.[/quote]
The fact that if you were to be, you would still know what freedom was does though.[/quote]
What? If I were enslaved, I would not want to be. This is proof that freedom from slavery is a natural right?
[/quote]
Answer the other question and I’ll get back to this.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I agree that nobody has a “right” to Y’s Z.
Because I am saying that nobody has a natural right to anything*.
Which means that Y doesn’t have a “natural right” to Z either.
*Or, rather, there isn’t any reason to believe that a natural right exists. If I am wrong, show me evidence of such a natural right.[/quote]
That the initiation of force is necessary to acquire something is proof enough that the initiator is violating the right of another.
The only time my rights theory runs into problems is in trying to justify eating animals to an atheist; I have a hard time finding a way to justify that-at least when it comes to killing a herbivore.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Let’s try this another way:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Where is the convincing evidence of the existence of a natural right?[/quote]
What color is the sky on a typical day?
[/quote]
What is a typical day? There is day 1, and day 2, and day 3, and so on.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
That the initiation of force is necessary to acquire something is proof enough that the initiator is violating the right of another. [/quote]
No, you’re assuming that that rights exist. We’re not talking about violation yet. Show that the right itself exists.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Let’s try this another way:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Where is the convincing evidence of the existence of a natural right?[/quote]
What color is the sky on a typical day?
[/quote]
What is a typical day? There is day 1, and day 2, and day 3, and so on.[/quote]
Say fuckign blue, lmao
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Let’s try this another way:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Where is the convincing evidence of the existence of a natural right?[/quote]
What color is the sky on a typical day?
[/quote]
What is a typical day? There is day 1, and day 2, and day 3, and so on.[/quote]
Say fuckign blue, lmao[/quote]
Hahaha.
OK fine, but I reserve the right to backtrack.
Blue. Or, I call “blue” the color that the sky is on a typical cloudless day.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Blue. Or, I call “blue” the color that the sky is .[/quote]
Thank you, you’ve again allowed me to skip some questions.
So we both agree that the color you see, and have been trained to call “blue” may not be the same color I see and have been trained to call “blue” correct?
Every been on an airplane?
What color is the sky when you clear the clouds?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I see no way that X will not be the initiator of force in attempting to claim Y’s Z.[/quote]
You keep skipping the point. Who says X can’t initiate force? Who says anyone has a right to life? Where do natural rights come from?[/quote]
He obviously can initiate force; however, in doing so, he will be violating Y’s right. The fact that he would not allow Y to take Z from him first is acknowledgment that he’s wrong.