I'm sorry, but can you find me some people who condone slavery? I have a right to my life, but murder still happens. Hello?



Sure. So does murder. Do you still have a right to live?

So then a right depends on who agrees you have them?

I'd prefer if you just gave an unambiguous definition in your own words, because you aren't communicating what you think to me very effectively.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 27 2015 09:53am

My take on rights is really expansive. Pretty much do as I please as long as I cause no harm to others.

I'm just curious, would you say deregulate the advertising and sale of fake pharmaceutical medication on the grounds of corporate liberty?

/bad example, substitute pharmaceutical for something else expensive but not life threatening.

//on a side note, i believe communications technology is bringing us closer to a free society

This post was edited by Comus on Feb 27 2015 01:31pm

I would deregulate the sale of real pharmaceuticals on the grounds of individual liberty. I would make it perfectly legal to sue corporate executives as individuals over product liability, but I would also make sure that the legal doctrine for assumption of risk is in place too.

Yeah, again, I'd like a definition of natural rights, not your thesis on rights

So if a parent prefer the risk to catch a disease to the side effect risk of the vaccine, then he should be charitable to the community and vaccinate his kids anyway.

Pretty stupid imo

actually there's a vital difference here, it is that of the power. expectations hold no weight without their enforcement.


no, it's a societal concept. i think that you might be referring to "absolutely universal rights" tho.


what? it's in the slaves' essence, it's their telos to make the master be able to do other stuff (such as participate in symposia).
all it took was for me to pick up a book by one of the founders of Western philosophical thought.


sure, those are what could be expected in many societies in the state of "primitive communism" - which is the norm for hunting-gathering lifestyles.
"normal expectations" don't exist, because there is no norm to be had here.

This post was edited by Gastly on Feb 27 2015 03:21pm

FFS! How many lmgtfys do you require?







And for further clarification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law



Is this fucking good enough for you? It's NOT cut-and-dried "this is natural, this is not," it requires reason and deduction. It's fluid, it's not easily nailed down. Are you expecting some enumeration of rights like the Bill of Rights? Do you understand that the Bill of Rights was opposed by people who think like me precisely because we felt that it limited rights to those enumerated, and why we fought for the 9th amendment.





Expectations don't matter with the uncivilized, sure. Good thing we're pretty civilized people in the world.



Wat?

which parts of my sentences did you have problems with?
this babble about "the uncivilized" is of course nothing short of ridiculous when my exact point was that the major societal changes between hunting-gathering societies and agricultural ones did create a gap in what rights are given and realised in the lives of the peoples living in these communities. the change to agriculture meant a change in rights as well, as did various other changes.. This is like... Pretty much well acknowledged in general.

What are these rights worth without enforcement, and what do you base them upon?

i mean... doesn¨t hinting at "uncivlized rights" also mean that these rights are a matter of "civilization", rather than a matter of nature? that's a self-contradictory position.

This post was edited by Gastly on Feb 27 2015 06:27pm