I think part of it is the social heirarchy. You just need to look at the existence of the bell curve for IQ or overall life effectiveness. A lot of people like you can manage on your own, however a lot of individuals can't without these state incentives to steer them on the right track.

I think the link I already provided, which you already read, did a pretty damn good job of doing just that. Especially the part where it touched on negative rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights



You're correct. I think she's guilty as sin. Bleachbit and physically smashing servers kinda gives me that impression. Trump's guilty as sin too.



Hooray for Draconian laws! Sure glad they went that route. /s

Right. But everyone (yourself included) tells us we're part of the government's social contract. I do not condone the government. If I want to engage in a social contract between myself and my immediate neighbors, but not the people in Ohio, that ought to be my prerogative.

Nothing about your right to life obligates my angry mob to action or inaction absent of a bigger mob.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 23 2020 09:55am

You're correct. I think she's guilty as sin. Bleachbit and physically smashing servers kinda gives me that impression. Trump's guilty as sin too

yes i agree with you but people that thing like ghot will say HRC is guilty trump is innocent

...other than your own desire to not be treated the same way you treat others.

Then your right is merely an expectation of how you will be treated by others, which means they are revoked if that expectation goes away.

Seems like youre shifting the definition of rights to avoid contradiction as you need to.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 23 2020 11:06am

and it seems like expectations shift with leftists when the conversation switches from rights to religion. we either can or cannot expect people to respect each other based on whether the context is do we need a govt or do we need religion.

Rights are not expectations for how you will be treated under government?

If rights are the expectation of how you will be treated under government then they can be removed by that government if it does not respect the thing. I.e. a government that can kill citizens indiscriminately has revoked the right to life, making it not a natural right, since natural rights are defined as rights that cannot be taken away.



Your confusion stems from both trying to pidgeonhole a heterogeneous people into the group "leftists" and from oversimplying a nuanced position about the relationship of government, religion, and rights.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 23 2020 12:08pm

im not confused about anything, of course im oversimplifying. i dont have 12 years to write a dissertation on the relationship between those 3 concepts.

it's just funny to watch athiest statists tell me one day that we can get rid of religion because people have a natural moral code, and then also that if we dont have the state we'll be plunged into anarchy because no one respects each other's rights.