The question remains: What exactly is the nature of a "right"?
I am still waiting for an answer to what seems the most fundamental question.
I think I have already expressed my opinion on this and provided my reasoning, but to repeat myself, I think the nature of a right is that action which is integral to the nature of man, does not require the forced assistance of others in order to be exercised, does not initiate aggression against another, and can be engaged in or exercised without violating the rights of another. It is good enough for me. But then, I am a laid-back, easy-going, live-and-let-live kinda guy.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos
Humm, you seem to define rights as a set of actions. That is not at all my understanding. I was thinking of rights more as the conceptual entitlement to action (or inaction).
To make a choice is an action, Ardy. For example: If I chose to express an idea that is an action and my right. If I chose to
not express an idea that is also an action and my right. If I chose to associate or assemble with others that is an action and my right. If I chose to
not associate or assemble with others tha is an action and my right. If I chose to maintain my privacy that is an action and my right. If I chose to
not maintain my privacy that is an action and my right.
If all you have left is a semantic quibble, I am going to have to conclude that this thread has probably reached its end.
Yours,
Issodhos
