Except they can be, by removing the expectation that others will respect them. Just like any other right.

You can say that anything is a natural right and dodge around the problem by saying they can be violated but not revoked.




By saying there are rights that cannot be revoked then you cannot be using that definition because any expectation can be revoked.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 24 2020 09:35am

only in a communist hellhole would a society revoke the expectation of property, and by force at that.

the idea that a society would revoke a natural right needs examples, not hypothetical b.s. to justify it. especially when "if no state existed a state would arise", drawing on historical precedent, was uttered in the debate.

Rights are for everyone. Everyone gets a right to life. Everyone gets to determine their own beliefs. Everyone can defend themselves. You can't remove these expectations for everyone. You can remove them for some people, and that's where we get into violating rights, not revoking them. Revocation means revocation for everyone.

I think of the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. When considering those, I can see how some could be revoked or forfeited as you mentioned above.
Like the Death Penalty, by way of example.

I can say any right has been "violated and not revoked" and bam. Theyre all natural rights.

Give an example.



The death penalty is a violation of the right, not a revocation of rights for everyone.

This post was edited by Santara on Apr 24 2020 10:06am

Literally any right.

The whole argument comes down to playing word games between revocation and violation.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 24 2020 10:08am

Natural rights are for absolutely everyone, regardless of where they live or their legal system. You can't revoke the right, say for example to live, because doing so means revoking the right of everyone, everywhere. You can violate someone's right to life, say for example because they broke your society's rules by infringing on someone else's rights, but doing so does not constitute a revocation of those rights for everyone.

You don't have to revoke a right for everybody to revoke it for some people.

Your entire argument boils down to playing a word game with revocation and violation, in that you only accept a violation is a revocation if you don't also call that right "natural".

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 24 2020 10:36am