For starters, I have zero idea what the reference for "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." is, or what point it's suppose to reinforce.

Your focus on ancient history as opposed to the enlightenment is probably why we're not even close to being on the same page.

Without enforcement? Because enforcement isn't always available for starters. Do you run red lights when no one is there to catch you? Do you burn houses down if no one is there to watch you? If you find a wallet full of cash and an ID, do you keep it? People don't simply do what's right because someone is forcing them to.

it's supposed to reinforce the advocancy of slavery, which you asked for.
it is from Aristoteles, from his Politica. it has to deal with his thoughts about essence (what makes something something) and telos (teleology - what is that essence suited for or what does it progress towards)
you asked for someone to support it and i gave you someone. i mean, Aristoteles is someone who you don't simply bash.. seeing that he's been the heart of the West for a long, long time (i mean, the British liberals certainly don't seem to be platonists to me etc.).


does this mean that it's not based on "natural rights" rather than something rather shady agreed upon during the enlightenment? ohh whoopsie, you're arguing for me here.
i mean, i'm all for modernism, i just don't think that its God-given.


yeap, yeap, yeap, yeap and yeap.
for you claiming that libertarians aren't capitalistic anarchists you seem awfully capitalistic anarchistic.



aight. wanna think about the Germanic societies back when?

This post was edited by Gastly on Feb 27 2015 06:53pm

Well then perhaps you didn't follow along earlier when it was pointed out that natural rights are a product of the enlightenment era, when natural rights supplanted the right of kings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings. Aristotle's writings clearly aren't meant for an enlightened age, are they?



FFS, do I have to describe separately to each and every libertroll ITT what natural rights are and are not?



Hard core Poe's law going on here.



When and what? That the Nazis didn't get the memo? Or that the commies didn't either?

You aren't explaining yourself very well, and you don't seem to be talking about natural rights, it just seems like you cling to something that supports your anti government motif and stop worrying about understanding after that point. If I'm wrong show it, but there doesn't seem to be one person so far you have communicated yourself to in a meaningful way yet.

No, it's just that the concept whizzes past you. Liberals aren't very good at grasping foreign concepts.

Which is funny because that's the opposite of true according to all research

Please. You couldn't even be bothered to read a wiki on the notion, you couldn't be bothered to try grasping the excerpts provided, tell me more about your "research."

Let's try a fun one. There is a right to travel. True or false?

oh, so that's the spiel.
so it's about the military instruments and the power moving from feudal ownership towards urbanisation back then. (feudal kingship - the lords held power) unto absolute monarchy (the Kingship no longer depended on the Lords to back him up - so the lords became subservient), and the power eventually shifted to the bourgeoisie (who created the first French republic)...
i still can't see any natural rights there.

but there's something that your forgot... natural rights, like divine and kingly rights are bound into essentialism - as was slavery, what are these essential rights? natural rights die along with the kings' rights, because they both depend upon essential rights like my example of essential slavery did!

or "where do these rights come from?"


i was thinking more in the lines of Germanic raiding parties.

This post was edited by Gastly on Feb 27 2015 07:27pm

Frankly it's not forced vaccinations I'm opposed to, it's the precedent set by allowing the government to force chemicals into a persons body.

Say vaccinations are 100% safe. What if terrorists polluted a batch and a wave of people, who had no choice in the matter, are exposed to real viruses?

And I mean, I only use that example because it's one I would expect you to relate to. The real danger would be in new versions of vaccines that really do wind up having severe consequences. How many people would be vaccinated before say 15 years pass and the symptoms begin to arise?

It's also a very Orwellian idea at it's worst and I just don't see how you can't respect that.

No, power rests with the consent given by the governed. People are no longer the property of the king to do with as he pleases. Why? Because the people no longer tolerate it. There weren't legal revolts against the kings. There were worldwide denials that kings served the interests of the people and the people were able to take matters into their own hands. Power shifted, and so did the concept of which entities of society held right(s).

Natural rights and essential rights are pretty much the same thing.

Of which era? And what is the connection to the discussion?