I've asked you this before and never gotten an answer, can you define "right" as used here.

He's referring to natural rights as described by Locke.

This.

So then what happens when I violate them as compared when I do something that doesn't violate your natural rights that distinguishes them. What reason do you have to believe in natural rights.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 25 2015 06:07pm

haven't read locke, want to explain what these mysterious things you call natural rights are? and why they have any meaningful existence without a state to guarantee them?

This post was edited by duffman316 on Feb 25 2015 06:08pm

Um, if you violate my rights, I will defend them?

So then a natural right is dependant on your ability to defend them?

I hate to rain on parades but the government has had a vaccination mandate for quite a long time, it demands that the schools comply with the mandate that every eligible (medically) student must have their vaccinations before they attend. That's vaccinations for the biggies MMR polio ,etc..

and another thing with the flu "shot" my kids have received the vaccination every year but it hasn't been a shot it's been a nasal inhaler I get a shot because my health is compromised.

Once again rather than trusting the internet and various forums talk to a Pediatrician they will be able to tell you the risks and pluses and minuses of vaccines with a liable voice, experts on the internet have no culpability if they are wrong. Trust your kids safety to someone who most certainly will be culpable.

It is more or less an apology for the existence of inequality within the social contract. Hume's was much worse.

But Locke also said that people didn't have the natural right to accumulate more than they could ever use, and decisively criticized the creation and use of money because it made this so easy to occur. Locke also reconciled the fact that people could own property with the opportunity to go to the New World and just take some of the land that is there freely, since nobody could possibly be using all of that space. But go build a house in a lot that somebody isn't using and see how that turns out, and all the people who cite Locke's natural rights will support the jerk owning stuff he isn't using against the guy who needs it to live, more of a Hobbes-social contract.

This post was edited by Skinned on Feb 25 2015 06:12pm

No, it exists whether I am able to defend it or not. But it will be defended regardless and you taking aggression against me doesn't make my ability to defend it the determinant of whether it is a right.