Quote (thundercock @ Apr 22 2020 03:53pm)
I guess I don't see a practical difference between the two? If I lost my "natural right of life," I'd still have laws against murder to protect me to an extent (obviously someone could still murder me but they'd be prosecuted if caught).
Alternatively, if there was no law against murder, someone can murder me without repercussion. I guess I don't understand the point of natural rights from a practical point of view. I can understand their merits as a philosophical underpinning, but that's about it.
Tell me you don't actually believe that.
Say for example you killed my daughter. I would then return the favor.
Quote (Thor123422 @ Apr 22 2020 04:12pm)
I'm reading through the linked wiki page and there's truly some gems.
And Locke's take is different from Spooner's. Government is not necessarily the only vehicle for justice.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spooner-natural-law-or-the-science-of-justice-1882Quote
Man, no doubt, owes many other moral duties to his fellow men; such as to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, care for the sick, protect the defenceless, assist the weak, and enlighten the ignorant. But these are simply moral duties, of which each man must be his own judge, in each particular case, as to whether, and how, and how far, he can, or will, perform them. But of his legal duty—that is, of his duty to live honestly towards his fellow men—his fellow men not only may judge, but, for their own protection, must judge. And, if need be, they may rightfully compel him to perform it. They may do this, acting singly, or in concert. They may do it on the instant, as the necessity arises, or deliberately and systematically, if they prefer to do so, and the exigency will admit of it.