Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General libertarians = right wing anarchists

As seen in the Blu-ray thread , consumer's inaction to help decide a new storage format allowed one corporation to win the debate.

My understanding of "rights" is that they are what a particualr group of people, or society decide are "rights" at a particualar time. usually, now, codified in documents such as constitutions and the UN charter on Human rights.

agreed upon, voted upon or otherwise ratified.

As philosophies politics, society and economics change and evolve so do rights.

the only natural right you have is the one you're born with. the right to exist. All others are inventions.

When doing so, their questions would be directed at the actual argument -- not a seemingly similar but actually different argument. You wish to equate the inaction of "a" with the infringe of a natural right of "b" while ignoring the defining concepts of such rights. In short, you are using semantics and ambiguity to distract from the actual argument.
Yours,
Issodhos

yes i wouldnt want to get all senantic about it now would I?


/wink

In China, and a new-born baby girl, that is not true. Your right to exist will probably in a few minutes if you haven't already been murdered for being a girl - if the mom and dad haven't already decided to give the baby girl up for adoption.

That is why baby adoptions from China consist of girls leaving that country.

Those would be state/societal granted privileges which could just as easily be recinded when useful to the state to do so.

And, in regard to your claim that there is a natural right to exist, you will have to make up your mind -- either there are natural rights or, as you claim in the beginning of your post, there are no natural rights.
Yours,
Issodhos

doesnt the parents action or inaction infringe upon the little girls right to life?

by withholding water that the child needed to survive arent they infringing upon the childs naturals right?

The baby girl has the natural right to life regardless whether that right is infringed upon. It is that natural right to life that provides her (and others representing her) the moral authority to demand she not be put to death.
Yours,
Issodhos

Prove it


Prove it.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos [/quote]

I am sure you have read the sources of Western thinking enough to see antecedents to "natural rights" in several mideast political and philosophical heritages.

I see, so lets say Ireland, the people in 1937 voted on a new consitution which defined the rights, - so the people were agreeing what rights the people of ireland should have.

it was in some ways an insane document, but thankfully it has been changed many times over the years - by referendum. the people directly choose what rights are, what rights the courts uphold, what boundaries legislation can have.

as society changes those rights change. were still in the process of re-defining rights of the unborn. under the original 37 doc they hold the right to life, but protection of that right infringes upon the rights of women to travel (preventing them going to England go for abortions).

so I would have to come down on the side that even the right to life is a defined one.

now you can rant on about "the state" all you want, but "the state" and successive governments doesnt want to touch this issue with a barge poll.

as i said when situations change so do rights, and when they have been taken away from people, or people believe they should have different rights than they currently do, they agitate for them.

isnt this part and parcel of revolutions....

no taxation without representation.