The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: lucidhawk on May 24, 2011, 10:36:05 AM
-
Natural right philosophers describe the three natural rights as "life","liberty" and "property".
As a libertarian; if I put forth that we have the "right" to these what am I saying?
Am I saying that others are required to protect my life, liberty and property? Or that others are required to give me life, liberty and property?
No
I'm saying I have the right to have and protect my own life, liberty and property and others have their right to do the same.
SO what is functionally different between these and a "right" to health care?
Well actually nothing..
That's the problem.. Conversations break down because the "natural rights" are framed differently than all other rights.
Because unless you change the terminology, you do have a right to health care as long as you don't initiate aggression, fraud or theft.
A "right" to health care should be seen and expressed in the same way as the other rights.
Just as you can't ethically say that people are required to give you property because you have a right to property; the same goes for health care no one is required to give you health care.
Thoughts? Counter points?
-
wat
-
The only "rights" you have are the ones you are willing to defend. If you think you have a right to do something, and a cop or other "authority" figure tells you that you cant do it, and you obey his BS order, that right ceases to exist.
Its as simple as that.
You gotta fight.....BOOM.... BOOM............ for your right ..BOOM ....BOOM BOOM......... to paaaaaartaaay!!! - Beastie Boys
-
Yes. Because might makes right. The only ones with the right are those with power.
-
Thats the reality of it.
-
That's bullshit too.
That idea is the exact opposite of the very concept of rights.
-
You only have a "right" to healthcare if you can afford to pay for it. Any other way is theft or a gift from someone else.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BP5Mb9S4ag&feature=related[/youtube]
-
I like to say that you only have the right to things you earned. Some like to think entitlements are rights, they ain't.
-
I like to say that you only have the right to things you earned. Some like to think entitlements are rights, they ain't.
You didn't earn your life; unless you consider survival/eating food your earning of life?
And you didn't earn your liberty; it's yours and others infringe upon it.
Also acquiring property through first appropriation or inheritance is valid.
-
I like to say that you only have the right to things you earned. Some like to think entitlements are rights, they ain't.
You didn't earn your life; unless you consider survival/eating food your earning of life?
And you didn't earn your liberty; it's yours and others infringe upon it.
Also acquiring property through first appropriation or inheritance is valid.
you trolling? use common sense man
-
?
-
I like to say that you only have the right to things you earned. Some like to think entitlements are rights, they ain't.
You didn't earn your life; unless you consider survival/eating food your earning of life?
And you didn't earn your liberty; it's yours and others infringe upon it.
Also acquiring property through first appropriation or inheritance is valid.
That's right, dependant children, including myself as a nipper have no rights. I had parents I was completely dependant on. As a self reliant adult I do have rights and believe me, I earned them.
Something dependant on the generosity or whim of others isn't a "right".
The only "rights" you have are the ones you are willing to defend. If you think you have a right to do something, and a cop or other "authority" figure tells you that you cant do it, and you obey his BS order, that right ceases to exist.
Its as simple as that.
You gotta fight.....BOOM.... BOOM............ for your right ..BOOM ....BOOM BOOM......... to paaaaaartaaay!!! - Beastie Boys
I respectfully disagree. You have a right to your shit. In a free society someone or groups of someone who steals stuff wouldn't be superior in ownership like it is now.
I assume we are talking a free society. If we are speaking of the statist society we are living here and now, we are either slaves or Sneaky ne'er do wells like us, or fed up freemen making a short appearance on cops long enough to be demonised as a kook before taking a dirt nap.
-
I like to say that you only have the right to things you earned. Some like to think entitlements are rights, they ain't.
You didn't earn your life; unless you consider survival/eating food your earning of life?
And you didn't earn your liberty; it's yours and others infringe upon it.
Also acquiring property through first appropriation or inheritance is valid.
Its as simple as that.
You gotta fight.....BOOM.... BOOM............ for your right ..BOOM ....BOOM BOOM......... to paaaaaartaaay!!! - Beastie Boys
I respectfully disagree. You have a right to your shit. In a free society someone or groups of someone who steals stuff wouldn't be superior in ownership like it is now.
I assume we are talking a free society. If we are speaking of the statist society we are living here and now, we are either slaves or Sneaky ne'er do wells like us, or fed up freemen making a short appearance on cops long enough to be demonised as a kook before taking a dirt nap.
[/quote]
damn Al - that's poetry/!
-
That's not poetry this is. Natural rights explained by the master.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTOQhPd2Xh4[/youtube]
-
ok , i gotta watch it before i say anything.......
-
And you didn't earn your liberty; it's yours and others infringe upon it.
So if someone infringes upon your liberty, does it still exist?
You only have what you are willing to prevent others from taking from you.
-
And you didn't earn your liberty; it's yours and others infringe upon it.
So if someone infringes upon your liberty, does it still exist?
You only have what you are willing to prevent others from taking from you.
In a manner this is true..
However that's not the point to "natural rights"..
A "natural right" is really only a descriptor of what you are rationally justified in having and protecting without being the one to cause a conflict.
And a natural law therefore is merely a concept that if followed by everyone in precise terms there would be no conflict.
And if the purpose of a law is to reduce problems between humans..
-
Of course if we respected the same "rights" of plants, animals and bugs we would have to remain perfectly still and die from starvation..
-
A "natural right" is really only a descriptor of what you are rationally justified in having and protecting without being the one to cause a conflict.
And a natural law therefore is merely a concept that if followed by everyone in precise terms there would be no conflict.
And if the purpose of a law is to reduce problems between humans..
Who enforces the law?
-
A "natural right" is really only a descriptor of what you are rationally justified in having and protecting without being the one to cause a conflict.
And a natural law therefore is merely a concept that if followed by everyone in precise terms there would be no conflict.
And if the purpose of a law is to reduce problems between humans..
Who enforces the law?
http://vimeo.com/23290325
-
A "natural right" is really only a descriptor of what you are rationally justified in having and protecting without being the one to cause a conflict.
And a natural law therefore is merely a concept that if followed by everyone in precise terms there would be no conflict.
And if the purpose of a law is to reduce problems between humans..
how do these guys get paid?
Who enforces the law?
http://vimeo.com/23290325
-
Yes I just responded to your q with a 2 hour lecture. 8)
-
Yes I just responded to your q with a 2 hour lecture. 8)
Yeah, but im fuckin' DUMB.
Attention span of a squirrel as well. By the time you got into the meaty part of your speech, my mind will have already drifted off into thoughts of circus clowns and apple pies.
Do you have a coloring book version?
I still cant figure out what rights are.
-
get ahold of yourself, hawk......
and i know i'm gonna come off as some smarmy 'kent-kuntette''
but , it's ''falling apart at the S-E-A-M-S'', ..........nigga
you lose a certain element of the think-tank amongst us, when you misspell your thread title......
*as i sit back in my smoking jacket, taylor-fladgate 20 yr. tawny in one hand, grandfather's pipe whispering a soft mist of cavendish black from my other........ i chuckle lowly at the ''enter'' button on my computer, satisfied that i have cut the legs from under thy opponent.....
with a simple....click....
-
Positive freedom and negative freedom. A pos freedom is freedom to protect your life, liberty, property. A negative freedom is a claim to the services of others: freedom from hunger, freedom from sickness, freedom from fear. You can trade for these by offering the owner of that service something of value or claim that its a right and force them to provide it.
-
get ahold of yourself, hawk......
and i know i'm gonna come off as some smarmy 'kent-kuntette''
but , it's ''falling apart at the S-E-A-M-S'', ..........nigga
you lose a certain element of the think-tank amongst us, when you misspell your thread title......
*as i sit back in my smoking jacket, taylor-fladgate 20 yr. tawny in one hand, grandfather's pipe whispering a soft mist of cavendish black from my other........ i chuckle lowly at the ''enter'' button on my computer, satisfied that i have cut the legs from under thy opponent.....
with a simple....click....
Haha thanks I'll admit I'm not the greatest speller. Though, I know how to spell "seams". But I didn't even notice the misspelling. *fixed*