Comment

SC GOP Voters: 15% Oppose Civil Rights Act, 27% 'Not Sure' - Update: 72% of Fox Viewers Reject CRA

556
Cerran5/25/2010 10:42:05 pm PDT
You didn’t even answer the question. I asked, what grants you a right to the hypothetical property that I just took from you? Your answer was something canned about how to gain property.

My bad however my explanation should suffice, with the exception of the self which you are automatically a self-owner, property ownership is acquired through mutual trade/sale or mixing your labor with raw materials, land not currently owned by someone else.

I told you what the foundation of rights is. Rights exist through what we collectively agree to grant ourselves and others, whether that be through a state, a government, or however we choose to collectively agree.

So it’s completely arbitrary in your view, due to change on a whim?

It’s the only definition that has meaning. Any other definition is either tautological, or says nothing.

Not true several philosophers have made great arguments which I’m not about to re-hash here for the existence of Natural rights.

For instance, ‘I have the right to life.’ What does that statement say that is not equally stated by ‘I am alive’?

The right to life is inherent in your person and cannot be taken away from you. Yes someone can deprive you of your life, but not of your right to life.

Does having a right to life mean that I cannot be killed? Clearly not. Does having a right to life mean that I should not be killed? If it does, then a ‘right’ is nothing more than a statement of what ‘should’ happen. In which case, it doesn’t exist at all save in hypotheticals and wishes.

So you don’t believe in morality?

After all morality is a basis of how things should go, not necessarily how they do.