Anyone being affected by Proposition 8?

[Radar]

I've never discussed "mythical rights". I've discussed the very real human rights that have been recognized as self-evident throughout the planet earth for over a thousand years.


1) List all of the stars in the universe, and then I'll list all of our rights. Both jobs will require similar effort.

2) The story is in the links I gave you. Read them.

3) What equipment was required to discover gravity? None. Someone sat under an apple tree and he was hit on the noggin with gravity.

If you actually read the items I posted, you'll have a clue about how they were discovered. I could add plenty more. Another very early writer on the topic of inalienable human rights is Saint Thomas Aquinas. You could also read Alexis de Toqueville, Harry Browne, Peter McWilliams, David Bergland, etc.


I know what you are saying, but you are wrong. Rights do exist, and ethics also. To deny the existence of rights is to say you would have no more right to complain if I rob you, rape you, enslave you, or kill you than you would to complain that it is raining.

You are asking me for answers, and I've already given them to you. I created links to each of those things that you can read. At the very least read "Natural Law" and "The Law" if you're too lazy to read anything else.

[Juniper]

Originally Posted by Radar

I've never discussed "mythical rights". I've discussed the very real human rights that have been recognized as self-evident throughout the planet earth for over a thousand years.


1) List all of the stars in the universe, and then I'll list all of our rights. Both jobs will require similar effort.

Very well. In that case, on what basis would you determine what is NOT someone's right?

Call me whatever you will, but don't you dare call me lazy. I've already read most of what you posted. As I said before, while I agree they were brilliant philosophers, they are not imprimatur. Theories. Opinions. Not proof.

3) What equipment was required to discover gravity? None. Someone sat under an apple tree and he was hit on the noggin with gravity.

He was hit in the noggin with an apple, not with gravity. And really, even that is a legend that may or may not have actually taken place.

I know what you are saying, but you are wrong. Rights do exist, and ethics also. To deny the existence of rights is to say you would have no more right to complain if I rob you, rape you, enslave you, or kill you than you would to complain that it is raining.

OK. Rights exist because you say they do. So mote it be. If you drag an argument out until your opponent ceases to give a shit, I guess you still can claim victory. Enjoy.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Juniper

Very well. In that case, on what basis would you determine what is NOT someone's right?

I believe I've been very clear on this matter, but I'll say it again.

We have the right to do ANYTHING we was as long as our actions do not physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of a non-consenting other.

Governments are here to defend us from being harmed by others, but not to protect us from harming ourselves.

If your actions initiate force or the threat of force (coercion) to make other people act a certain way, you are stepping beyond your rights.

If you make a law that says people must stop at red lights, you are defending safety. Since we have a right to defend ourselves, we may grant this power to government. If you make a law that says people must wear helmets when riding a motorcycle, you are using coercion (the threat that men with guns will show up and take away your freedom) to force someone else to do something against their will even though if they weren't doing it, it would not harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.

If you make a law against rape, you are defending non-consenting people against the aggression of others. If you make a law that says someone may not offer sexual services for money, you are saying that you have a more of a claim to their body than they have for themselves and that you get to make decisions over their body against their will. You are trying to defend them against their own decisions.

This is a very clear and easy way to determine what is or is not a right.

I like to use the "If I were on an island" test.

If I were on an island with other people and no laws or government, would I have a right to do this?

For instance, if I were on an island that has people on it but no laws or government, would I have the right to prevent a woman from getting an abortion? Of course not. It is her own body and I have no say over her body or its contents. I therefore could not grant this power to government, and neither could a million of me, or a billion of me. Zero times a billion is still zero.


If I were on an island that has people on it but no laws or government, and someone tried to steal the vegetables I was growing, would I have the right to use force to stop them? Yes, I would because I'd be using defensive force, not aggressive force. If my neighbors and I agree to band together to defend against a gang of thugs, are we within our rights? Yes, because we are defending. We aren't trying to use force against other people to make them do something against their will.

Originally Posted by Juniper

Call me whatever you will, but don't you dare call me lazy. I've already read most of what you posted. As I said before, while I agree they were brilliant philosophers, they are not imprimatur. Theories. Opinions. Not proof.

These people prepared well-reasoned arguments about why rights exist. I have heard nothing equally intelligent to the contrary.

In the end it comes down to this.

You either believe we are born with rights and we own ourselves, or you think we have no rights, and we are the property of someone else or a group of someone else.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Radar

In the end it comes down to this.

You either believe we are born with rights and we own ourselves, or you think we have no rights, and we are the property of someone else or a group of someone else.

This is exactly right. Put aside your opinion of Radar's personality and think about it for a minute.

Natural rights. It's self explanatory.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by jinx

This is exactly right. Put aside your opinion of Radar's personality and think about it for a minute.

Natural rights. It's self explanatory.

I am still unconvinced that rights exist as anything other than a human construct. Those rights which we have constructed and agreed upon (as a society) I deem worthy of defending and I see them as an integral part of 'civilisation' ... but they are something we, as humans have come up with and applied to ourselves.

[jinx]

I am still unconvinced that rights exist as anything other than a human construct.

So what you're saying is that the first humans had no rights until they became civilized enough construct them? That makes no sense to me. How is it that they were able to live and be free if they didn't have the right to?
Oppression of rights is a human construct. Privileges are a human construct.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by jinx

So what you're saying is that the first humans had no rights until they became civilized enough construct them? That makes no sense to me. How is it that they were able to live and be free if they didn't have the right to?
Oppression of rights is a human construct. Privileges are a human construct.

They lived and were free (presumably) because they lived and were free. Rights have nothing to do with it. Lions live and are free. Mammoths lived and were free. Humans lived and were free. It has nothing to do with rights. We're just biological systems.

[eta] Humans had the capacity to live and be free, rather than the right.