Well you're not powerful enough to assert that

After all, coercion is the basis of all rights.

Say it to my face nigga

No. I have a right to life and liberty even if I don't coerce people.
Coercion can be used defensively to protect my rights. It is not always necessary.

Perhaps you're thinking of privileges* you want from the state that require coercing others

No, I mean rights. If there wasn't an apparatus like the police, there would be nothing stopping us from bashing each other over the head until one of us was dead and it wouldn't really matter.

The right of might is the only real right, the rest are built off of that foundation.

A right to life is really laughable given how cutthroat our existence is in terms of animals eating one another

If I'm in the woods some time and encounter a hungry bear I'll assert my right to live to it.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jul 8 2014 02:47pm

Just give it some broccoli?
Derp?

I think I've seen you two go over this "rights/privileges/freedom" conversation before lol

Do you get his point?




Pretty much

We have freedom of will, that's about all there is. Without government or some centralized force there are no rights, there is freedom - which rights directly contradict.
You can have a personal code, and destroy anyone that you believe intrudes, or try to at least. But there are no rights, which isn't a bad thing.

Or something like that, that is what you're trying to get at, right?

I "get it", but I also disagree.

As I was saying I still have a moral right to life even if someone attempts to infringe on it and kill me.
The right always being respected is not a requirement for its existence.


Even with a police force there are many murders all around the world.
Did the victims not have a right to life? The murderers were justified in taking the life of innocents? Surely you jest.

Coercion is NOT always necessary to maintain my right to life, even if it MAY be necessary to protect it in some circumstances. Nor was coercion necessary to create my right to life.
Therefore it is not the basis
Negative rights do not require coercion.
His positive "rights" like forcing people to pay for his condoms necessarily do require coercion to be implemented.


The state does not grant us our rights. The founders agreed.
They set up rules meant to prevent the government from infringing on rights that were already inherent and inalienable.

The UN also agrees:
"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Jul 8 2014 03:27pm

No.
Ownership is the basis of all rights.

And those who use coercion against others fear coercion themselves. See: Liberals
This frequently is true. Carrying out a wrongful action results in intense fear of similar actions in the perpetuators of those acts.
e.g most thieves likely have intense fears of being stolen from vs. people who don't engage in theft etc.. etc..


Liberals are delusional Fascists. Thanks for proving this point with the above post.

This post was edited by TradeBot on Jul 8 2014 03:31pm

Explain to me how you have this right and aren't simply making it up.





You're just weak in legal philosophy.

What are rights based on? How is property the basis of all rights? How is property maintained?

You say I'm a delusional fascist, but you don't have anything to back that up with. A fascist doesn't believe in rights. Calling me a cultural Marxist would be more accurate than what you said, because I am for completely equal treatment under law and the same rights for all citizens.

More specifically, every person should have the most extensive basic set of rights possible considering the rights of others, and that inequality should only exist when functional, such as doctors being more valuable than janitors for example, not blacks being less important than whites in American culture, as it is.

Please tell me how my worldview is flawed and tell me what your alternative is so I can rip it to pieces for ya. It is real easy to act righteous when you're offer nothing.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jul 8 2014 03:48pm

What entitles you to it?

I say it's not a right, and doesn't need to be.
Do as you wish, you need not entitlement.

This post was edited by Tylr on Jul 8 2014 03:53pm