Depends on circumstance. All rights depend on circumstance IMO.

mmh? so it's about power again now?

legal revolts? what?
but there were a plenty or revolts and revolutions. the French state shifted from democracy to monarchy to democracy to monarchy (you get the gist).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848
or the Hungarian rebellions?
or the Polish ones?
etc.

did the declaration of unshakable autocracy just spring out of nowhere?
what about the murder of Umberto I? or Alexander II?


uhh. yes?


yeah, and that's where the king gets his right to rule. get the drift?


it was referring to "people doing the right thing even if no one forces them to" (or something like that) back a few posts back.

This post was edited by Gastly on Feb 27 2015 08:02pm

Good line: If you think you know more than doctors, why would you go to a doctor who knows less than you?

Because i need his signature to get drug, surgery or any other treatment i need, however retarded he could be.

In general.



You brought up power, not me.



In light of the long-held notion of the right of kings to supremely rule, the new concept of natural rights flew straight in the face of it. Revolting against the king was considered an egregious violation of the then-standard rights of society.

There wasn't a clear line of "this side of the line is king's rights, and that side is natural rights." It was a process. It's still a process to an extent even to this day.



Um, no? Natural law is NOT where a king "gets the right to rule."

http://www.cms.gov/openpayments/

Who has your doctor been 'having lunch with'?

yeap. i just didn't wish to disregard it at any point because it can't be disregarded.


yes, it's what i talked about when talking about the weakness of essentialism and the relation of rights to power.
my point is that these natural rights exist as much as the "kings' rights" do. as in that they don't. as in that they exist like other rights do.


except that my answer pointed out to your post about "essential rights". that's the part about "get the drift?"

This post was edited by Gastly on Feb 27 2015 10:22pm

I support mandatory vaccinations so long as there are religious exemptions.

I was gonna say, depends on whether or not we know that this person is going to have Ebola 2 posts later when we say he has the right to travel xD

I say we apply vaccinations via nano-technology delivered nation wide by chem-trails

owait maybe they already have..