• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What is a "Right"???

Robert Prey said:
Natural rights are not subject to government intervention. But tyranny happens. I'm trying to take your question seriously, because you may also be a victim of a government school.
Click to expand...

a reasonable, constitutional tyranny? :confused:
 
Robert Prey said:
Natural rights are not subject to government intervention. But tyranny happens. I'm trying to take your question seriously, because you may also be a victim of a government school.
Click to expand...

If tyranny happens, the guess what?

The government HAS intervened and you no longer have that right until either the legal framework reinstates said right OR the tyranny is overthrown and the new order gives it effect.
 
Robert Prey said:
Natural rights are not subject to government intervention. But tyranny happens.
Click to expand...

You said that locking people away without trial was "reasonable" given certain circumstances. That means you think that the government can have a reasonable foundation to take away your natural right to liberty. Please explain how you can support the restriction of natural rights and still claim they are/should be inalienable.

I'm trying to take your question seriously, because you may also be a victim of a government school.
Click to expand...

And I'm trying to ignore your ad hom.*

*To the pedents out there...yes it is an ACTUAL ad hom not just an insult.
 
I can't resist:

KingMerv00 said:
*To the pedents out there...yes it is an ACTUAL ad hom not just an insult.
Click to expand...

That's "pedants".

ETA: And of course you're right. Robert Prey is committing the ad hominem fallacy because where you went to school and what news outlets I use are completely irrelevant. Our arguments stand or fall on their own merits.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
I'm going to take you seriously, but perhaps I shouldn't
Click to expand...

Quit personalizing this.


A murderer has forsaken any rights due to the obvious.
Click to expand...


You do realize that it's impossible to forsake that which is inalienable, don't you?

ETA: And I think you know how absurd your argument here is by now. You said governments can't intervene to remove natural rights. I asked if murderers then lacked the natural right to life and liberty. You said they have forsaken those rights, which implies that they are going to jail voluntarily or committing suicide rather than being put to death. Those premises--necessary to your argument-- are false.

At any rate, even if they were voluntarily giving up those rights (absurd!) that would still mean their so-called natural rights aren't inalienable. The rights must merely be part of our current social contract.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
Quit personalizing this.





You do realize that it's impossible to forsake that which is inalienable, don't you?

ETA: And I think you know how absurd your argument here is by now. You said governments can't intervene to remove natural rights. I asked if murderers then lacked the natural right to life and liberty. You said they have forsaken those rights, which implies that they are going to jail voluntarily or committing suicide rather than being put to death. Those premises--necessary to your argument-- are false.

At any rate, even if they were voluntarily giving up those rights (absurd!) that would still mean their so-called natural rights aren't inalienable. The rights must merely be part of our current social contract.
Click to expand...

Sophomoric twaddle.
 
KingMerv00 said:
You said that locking people away without trial was "reasonable" given certain circumstances. That means you think that the government can have a reasonable foundation to take away your natural right to liberty. Please explain how you can support the restriction of natural rights and still claim they are/should be inalienable.
Click to expand...


Although I never said natural rights were inalienable, they still exist even when government denies them.
 
Robert Prey said:
Although I never said natural rights were inalienable, they still exist even when government denies them.
Click to expand...

Actually, your statement was that natural rights are not subject to government intervention. Later you then stated that the suspension of habeus corpus was a justifiable act by the government.

So which is it? If the right is not subject to government intervention, how can that right be suspended by government intervention when the circumstances merit?

So back to it then - what is a right Mr Prey? The rest of us have given definitions and been able to defend same. You've given us examples of what you think a right is, but your defence has been less than effective as you have contradicted yourself - care for a rethink?
 
Robert Prey said:
A right presumes the respect for the rights of others. A murderer has chosen to be excluded from such rights by his action. Obviously.
Click to expand...

That isn't self evident from your examples. Sounds almost like you're talking about a legal code
 
Reading up on the subject here, I found the following statements worth consideration:

A prisoner may not exercise his right to roam free. It is a mere rhetorical device to say his right has been taken away, so as to make the analogy to a barnyard animal or a creature in a zoo stronger. Analogies are not valid arguments, and a man in a cage is still a man.
Click to expand...

The emphasized portion is a bit like saying that it is a mere rhetorical device to say the stars disappear in the daytime but we all know that doesn't actually happen. If I read this correctly, rights remain with a person even when they cannot exercise them as they please. Also useful:

I agree that an intrinsic understanding of rights is wrong. Rights are not attributes. However, the idea that rights can be taken away is another mistake. Rights should not be reified into separate entities, as if they were marbles in a bag and one's rights can be taken away just as your marbles can. Rights are principles for acting ethically toward other people. Rights are about the relationships that should obtain between people, all people including irrational ones. Other principles are prior to the principle of rights. The principle of egoism logically prevents letting thieves roam free as that would be in no one's self interest (objectively, not even a thief's self interest).
Click to expand...

This puts rights in the category of a moral principle derived from certain facts about every person's nature which requires a degree of restraint in how we behave towards others, necessarily leading to a legal code that should deter criminal action.

More!:
Justice and judgement is not a passive response to changing character of the criminal, but an active interference in the criminal's life. Punishment deliberately and willfully strips a criminal of freedom of action with the intent of causing harm proportional to the harm inflicted. If imprisonment didn't violate the criminals rights, it would not reciprocate the crime and would be unjust.
Click to expand...

The prisoner's rights are violated deliberately? So that explains what makes prison a form of punishment... hmmmm. This is all very interesting.
 
Border Reiver said:
Actually, your statement was that natural rights are not subject to government intervention. Later you then stated that the suspension of habeus corpus was a justifiable act by the government.

So which is it? If the right is not subject to government intervention, how can that right be suspended by government intervention when the circumstances merit?

So back to it then - what is a right Mr Prey? The rest of us have given definitions and been able to defend same. You've given us examples of what you think a right is, but your defence has been less than effective as you have contradicted yourself - care for a rethink?
Click to expand...

Read the OP. A right is the room that nature endows us with to go about the business of staying alive. A right still exists whether respected by a government or not. In time of war, rights exist in the realm of the ideasphere as well, even though they may not respected as war is a defacto condition of anarchy and chaos.
 
Robert Prey said:
Read the OP. A right is the room that nature endows us with to go about the business of staying alive. A right still exists whether respected by a government or not. In time of war, rights exist in the realm of the ideasphere as well, even though they may not respected as war is a defacto condition of anarchy and chaos.
Click to expand...

So, it is appropriate to infringe on natural rights when they interfere with other goals? So what use is the concept?
 
Robert Prey said:
Read the OP. A right is the room that nature endows us with to go about the business of staying alive. A right still exists whether respected by a government or not. In time of war, rights exist in the realm of the ideasphere as well, even though they may not respected as war is a defacto condition of anarchy and chaos.
Click to expand...

Rights only exist in the idea sphere.

The only thing Nature endowed us with to survive is our mental capacity and our ability to learn. Otherwise humans are particularly ill suited to survive, what with no natural defences, minimal natural defences, etc.

Nature doesn't endow you with rights, society does.
 
Border Reiver said:
Rights only exist in the idea sphere.

The only thing Nature endowed us with to survive is our mental capacity and our ability to learn. Otherwise humans are particularly ill suited to survive, what with no natural defences, minimal natural defences, etc.

Nature doesn't endow you with rights, society does.
Click to expand...


A "society" that sees itself as the giver of rights also sees itself as the taker of rights. Anyone who buys into that "might makes right" philosophy has given their Sieg Heil to a potential oppressor.
 
Robert Prey said:
Sophomoric twaddle.
Click to expand...

Well that was an intelligent and erudite comment that advances the conversation. . .

Oh wait--no, it wasn't.

So I'll repeat my question (and review how we reached this point):

You do realize that it's impossible to forsake that which is inalienable, don't you?

And I think you know how absurd your argument here is by now. You said governments can't intervene to remove natural rights. I asked if murderers then lacked the natural right to life and liberty. You said they have forsaken those rights, which implies that they are going to jail voluntarily or committing suicide rather than being put to death. Those premises--necessary to your argument-- are false.

At any rate, even if they were voluntarily giving up those rights (absurd!) that would still mean their so-called natural rights aren't inalienable. The rights must merely be part of our current social contract.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom