What is a "Right"???

[Border Reiver]

No, and yes.

You had already said earlier in this thread that the suspension of habeus corpus was perfectly acceptable, given that the US was at war. Which is it?

Also, if you cannot conceive of a thing, how can you make it real?

 

[Border Reiver]

That's what King George thought.

Nice falsified view of history. The right to representation in Parliament was known to the colonists and was considered to be one of their rights as Englishmen, which was being denied.

Now if you want to go there, you can ask yourself if the colonists truly believed in property rights, given the way they annexed the lands of various First Nations without considering their property rights, or if they were just availing themselves of the "might makes right" principle.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Except for the love of liberty we have in our hearts. At least some of us.

The love of liberty gives you the means to assert your rights? OK.

So if a criminal loves liberty, he gain the means to reassert his rights? I don't see that working.



PS Is this thread for real or is it just some game of soundbite philosophy?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It matters not who has the de facto right. In the ideasphere of Liberty, all who subscribe to it have a right to it. Those that don't, don't.

So long as I subscribe to the ideasphere of liberty, I have the inalienable right to practice the drums at 3am. Can I get a certificate saying I subscribed to pin to my front door?

 

[Robert Prey]

So long as I subscribe to the ideasphere of liberty, I have the inalienable right to practice the drums at 3am. Can I get a certificate saying I subscribed to pin to my front door?

Disturbing the peace at 3 am infringes upon the inalienable rights of others to enjoy peace at 3 am in the morning. No different than one who decides to murder. Such offenders have chosen license over liberty and thus exclude themselves from the ideasphere of liberty.

 

[Robert Prey]

Nice falsified view of history. The right to representation in Parliament was known to the colonists and was considered to be one of their rights as Englishmen, which was being denied.

Now if you want to go there, you can ask yourself if the colonists truly believed in property rights, given the way they annexed the lands of various First Nations without considering their property rights, or if they were just availing themselves of the "might makes right" principle.

There is no such a thing as a "first nation." The lands conquered by the early settlers were previously conquered by others.

 

[Robert Prey]

You had already said earlier in this thread that the suspension of habeus corpus was perfectly acceptable, given that the US was at war.

The rules of war is, there are no rules.

 

[Robert Prey]

If a murderer subscribes to the idea sphere of Liberty is he entitled to it?

NO. And that is a self contradictory premise.

 

[DC]

Voting is not a human right.

in some ways it is.

Article 21.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

 

[Distracted1]

There is no such a thing as a "first nation." The lands conquered by the early settlers were previously conquered by others.

And by conquering these lands, their claim to them became legitimate?

 

[Flo]

Disturbing the peace at 3 am infringes upon the inalienable rights of others to enjoy peace at 3 am in the morning. No different than one who decides to murder. Such offenders have chosen license over liberty and thus exclude themselves from the ideasphere of liberty.

How is it determined there is an inalienable right for peace at 3 am, and not at 5 pm ? As to the analogy with murder, it is just plain silly.

There is no such a thing as a "first nation." The lands conquered by the early settlers were previously conquered by others.

How convenient is the doctrine of "I got mine, **** the rest" ! BTW, where does it stop ? Should someone conquer your land, are you ready to apply the same reasonning, accept the fact you've been vainquished, and renounce your current property rights ?

 

[Taarkin]

Disturbing the peace at 3 am infringes upon the inalienable rights of others to enjoy peace at 3 am in the morning. No different than one who decides to murder. Such offenders have chosen license over liberty and thus exclude themselves from the ideasphere of liberty.

Your enjoyment of peace at 3 AM infringes on my inalienable right to disturb the peace, therefore you have excluded yourself from the ideasphere of liberty.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Disturbing the peace at 3 am infringes upon the inalienable rights of others to enjoy peace at 3 am in the morning. No different than one who decides to murder. Such offenders have chosen license over liberty and thus exclude themselves from the ideasphere of liberty.

What if I practice in the daytime and one of my neighbours still hates it and tries to stop me? Which one of us is no different from a murderer in that case?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

There is no such a thing as a "first nation." The lands conquered by the early settlers were previously conquered by others.

So, might makes right?

This will presumably apply to any successful future invader too.

 

[Border Reiver]

The rules of war is, there are no rules.

See, the problem you've got here is that Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus didn't affect the regions of the US in rebellion at that time, only the regions where the Union government still had authority. What he did was suspend the rights of those who were not in rebellion - some reward for remaining loyal.

In other words your doctrine seems to be that if in war rights are free to be ignored, because, hey, it's a war. Given that there have been very few years of peace in the history of the US, you should be quite grateful that your government doesn't suspend your rights more often.

I would also like to draw your attention to the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions with respect to your contention that there are no rules in war - there are plenty of rules, and you may be surprised to know that they are generally followed as well.

 

[Taarkin]

Robert: since rights are self-evident and murderers don't have rights, does that mean murderers are easily identifiable?

 

[Border Reiver]

There is no such a thing as a "first nation." The lands conquered by the early settlers were previously conquered by others.

The Iroquois Confederacy and a few others likely have an issue with your first sentence here.

As to the other, by that logic the early settlers had (and by extension the current occupiers) no legal rights to those lands either. Or should the US be conquered no former US citizen would have property rights either.

 

[Tony]

After 6 pages of discussion, I think the answer to the question "What is a "Right"??? is as follows:

A right is anything Robert Prey agrees with. If Robert Prey disagrees with it, it isn't a right. Robert Prey is the sole arbiter of your rights, if you disagree with him, you hate liberty.

 

[Chaos]

Disturbing the peace at 3 am infringes upon the inalienable rights of others to enjoy peace at 3 am in the morning. No different than one who decides to murder. Such offenders have chosen license over liberty and thus exclude themselves from the ideasphere of liberty.

So it is okay to kill someone who makes noise at 3 AM?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So it is okay to kill someone who makes noise at 3 AM?

Good question. You should have heard the racket my neighbour made, banging on my door and yelling.