View Poll Results: Do you have the right to NOT exercise a right?

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    40 88.89%
  • No

    2 4.44%
  • Other

    3 6.67%
Page 10 of 38 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 377

Thread: The right to -not- exercise a right?

  1. #91
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's not insult, it's truth. If you place the power of "rights" in the hands of some government force, you authorize some very dangerous practices. The base of this nation was built upon understanding and accepting the innate and inalienable nature of rights. If the government decides there is no "right to life" and sets up death troops, according to you we have no rightful place to resist or protest or dissent. But I say the right to life is innate to my very being. And in doing so, revolt against the death troops becomes am acceptable solution.

    It's retarded to place such floppy definitions to rights as the use and evocation of rights are essential to understanding the basis of Republic. The People are in charge, why? Cause the government is our property, we own it, it derives all power from us, and if it does not work the way we like we have the right to get rid of it. But the "those with the guns" arguments wouldn't say that. Tyrannical government is fine because the tyrannical government is in the right (being the institute which can define and enforce such things). We can't get rid of it, it's not our right. It may be that rights were discovered phenomenologically, but it doesn't take away from their absolute nature.

    Tell me, do you "believe" in the laws of thermodynamics? Can you show me where they are derived from?
    When the tsnunami came, everyone on the beach drowned.

    So much for their "right" to life.

    The only thing the "right" to life gets anyone is legal cover for self-defense against a would-be murderer. And in many societies if the murderer was well connected, he was avenged.

    Murder is frowned upon because nobody wants it to happen to him and societies that tolerate wanton murder don't survive long or well.

  2. #92
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    When the tsnunami came, everyone on the beach drowned.

    So much for their "right" to life.

    The only thing the "right" to life gets anyone is legal cover for self-defense against a would-be murderer. And in many societies if the murderer was well connected, he was avenged.

    Murder is frowned upon because nobody wants it to happen to him and societies that tolerate wanton murder don't survive long or well.
    So you're saying that if someone attacks me, I have no justification to defend myself.

    If someone tries to take my property, I have no justification to defend it

    If someone tries to enslave me, I have no justification to fight it.

    That's what you've just said.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    "Rights" are things made up by Man and allowed/removed by Man made institutions (from your own thought process in your mind up to a Government). Regardless of whether you think they are from God or the State, they don't REALLY exist. They are what we like to call ABSTRACT ideas. Your REAL 'right' to live initially extends only as far as the laws of physics allow it. i.e. if you fall from a plane, you gonna lose that 'right'. Now, in terms of the STATE that right includes a few more MAN made and GRANTED things, such as Self-defense and Defense of Property and Happiness, etc.

  4. #94
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    If you fall from a plane, chances are you'll die. Because we're mortal doesn't mean we don't have right to life. Because people can steal doesn't mean that we don't have right to property. Because people can enslave doesn't mean that we don't have right to liberty. Just because exercise of rights can be infringed upon doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.

    If someone tries to kill me, am I just in defending myself?
    If someone tries to steal from me, am I just to prevent it?
    If someone tries to enslave me, am I just in fighting it?

    If rights do not exist, the answer to all these are no. There's no justification, you're merely beast doing as beast does. If you live in a society where the government allows you to fight back when someone tries to kill you, you may fight back. If that government doesn't allow it, you may not fight back. If the government allows slavery, you may not fight your bonds. If it prohibits slavery, you may fight your bonds. That's the squishy nature of taking rights as some arbitrary privilege granted by State. But the three questions I ask are base to rights. If I am always in the right to protect my life when threatened, then right to life cannot be defined through society or government. Rather it's innate to the individual. If it is just to fight your own slavery no matter what; than right to liberty is not defined through society or State, but rather innate to the person. If I am always just in defending my property against theft, then right to property is not defined through society or State, but rather innate to the person.

    Making rights arbitrary opens up doors which are best left closed.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #95
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    So you're saying that if someone attacks me, I have no justification to defend myself.
    No, I'm saying that you need to improve your reading comprehension skills, since what I said isn't what you said.

    The first thing I said is that "rights" are legal/abstract concepts. As such they have no existence in the real world of animal-to-animal interactions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    If someone tries to take my property, I have no justification to defend it
    Ask Randy Weaver how far he got protecting his property from the Feds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    If someone tries to enslave me, I have no justification to fight it.
    Yes, you have justification. You may or may not have the right to do so.

    Why are you confusing "rights", an abstract term defining limits on government power, with "justice", an abstract concept of right and wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    That's what you've just said.
    Not hardly.

    Look, you may FEEL you have a right to your life.

    If your polity is dominated by men driven by personal greed who are above the law, your feelings don't mean ****, and you have no rights. Look at most of history. Your rights are only as strong as the law you live under, and when the law is weak, ie, doesn't protect you, your "rights" don't exist.

    Repeat after me...a "right" is a conceptual entity with no true existence and is merely a definition of law.

    Study the history of humanity. People fought to defend themselves because their instincts demanded it. If they won, they could establish a right of self-defense. If they failed, they usually wound up at crow food.

  6. #96
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    If you fall from a plane, chances are you'll die. Because we're mortal doesn't mean we don't have right to life. Because people can steal doesn't mean that we don't have right to property. Because people can enslave doesn't mean that we don't have right to liberty. Just because exercise of rights can be infringed upon doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.

    If someone tries to kill me, am I just in defending myself?
    If someone tries to steal from me, am I just to prevent it?
    If someone tries to enslave me, am I just in fighting it?

    If rights do not exist, the answer to all these are no. There's no justification, you're merely beast doing as beast does. If you live in a society where the government allows you to fight back when someone tries to kill you, you may fight back. If that government doesn't allow it, you may not fight back. If the government allows slavery, you may not fight your bonds. If it prohibits slavery, you may fight your bonds. That's the squishy nature of taking rights as some arbitrary privilege granted by State. But the three questions I ask are base to rights. If I am always in the right to protect my life when threatened, then right to life cannot be defined through society or government. Rather it's innate to the individual. If it is just to fight your own slavery no matter what; than right to liberty is not defined through society or State, but rather innate to the person. If I am always just in defending my property against theft, then right to property is not defined through society or State, but rather innate to the person.

    Making rights arbitrary opens up doors which are best left closed.
    Your 'Rights' didn't exist until Civilization came up with them. Ancient cultures had different rights than we did now, so what happened to those rights? Did they stop being rights or what? In medieval Denmark you could kill someone so long as you paid their worth to the family, that was a 'right' so to speak.

    If nothing naturally occurring has 'rights' clearly defined though physics then why would we, by natural occurrence, be any different? Rights are an abstract idea that man has come up with to decide upon the things that we hold dearest and feel that we can all be entitled to without imposing on others.

  7. #97
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No, I'm saying that you need to improve your reading comprehension skills, since what I said isn't what you said.

    The first thing I said is that "rights" are legal/abstract concepts. As such they have no existence in the real world of animal-to-animal interactions.



    Ask Randy Weaver how far he got protecting his property from the Feds.



    Yes, you have justification. You may or may not have the right to do so.

    Why are you confusing "rights", an abstract term defining limits on government power, with "justice", an abstract concept of right and wrong?



    Not hardly.

    Look, you may FEEL you have a right to your life.

    If your polity is dominated by men driven by personal greed who are above the law, your feelings don't mean ****, and you have no rights. Look at most of history. Your rights are only as strong as the law you live under, and when the law is weak, ie, doesn't protect you, your "rights" don't exist.

    Repeat after me...a "right" is a conceptual entity with no true existence and is merely a definition of law.

    Study the history of humanity. People fought to defend themselves because their instincts demanded it. If they won, they could establish a right of self-defense. If they failed, they usually wound up at crow food.
    You define everything off of probability and possible outcome. Because we can be killed, there's no right to life. Because someone can steal our stuff, there's no right to property. It's not an argument I find to be very valid. There's lots of probabilities, but that doesn't mean bases don't exist. I find the arbitrary placement of rights to be very dangerous. You in essence say I cannot be in the right for defending myself, that rather I am subject to the whims of the government on the matter. I don't accept that.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  8. #98
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    I have the right...


    TO PAAAAAAAARRRTAAYYY

  9. #99
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    Your 'Rights' didn't exist until Civilization came up with them. Ancient cultures had different rights than we did now, so what happened to those rights? Did they stop being rights or what? In medieval Denmark you could kill someone so long as you paid their worth to the family, that was a 'right' so to speak.

    If nothing naturally occurring has 'rights' clearly defined though physics then why would we, by natural occurrence, be any different? Rights are an abstract idea that man has come up with to decide upon the things that we hold dearest and feel that we can all be entitled to without imposing on others.
    Lots of stuff didn't exist in the early stages of development for the human race. It doesn't mean they don't exist or weren't discovered or weren't learned about later on. Rights are an abstract idea, realized when man was able to comprehend the abstract.

    There seems to be an overall rejection by those refusing to acknowledge rights in qualitative data. As such, I would ask again if you "believe" in the laws of thermodynamics and if you can show me their proofs.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #100
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The right to -not- exercise a right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    If someone tries to kill me, am I just in defending myself?
    Depends.

    If you were in Iraq under Saddam Hussein at the time of the attack, and was your assailant was one of his sons, you can be justified as hell, and still wind up as dead as the dinosaurs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    If rights do not exist, the answer to all these are no. There's no justification, you're merely beast doing as beast does.
    THAT IS the justification for self-defense.

    Since rights are lawfully imposed limits on the actions of others, the realm of the "right" exists outside the realm of the base animal. But that means rights must be defined arbitrarily. Defined by people. And hence rights are not absolutes.




    If you live in a society where the government allows you to fight back when someone tries to kill you, you may fight back. If that government doesn't allow it, you may not fight back. If the government allows slavery, you may not fight your bonds. If it prohibits slavery, you may fight your bonds. That's the squishy nature of taking rights as some arbitrary privilege granted by State. But the three questions I ask are base to rights. If I am always in the right to protect my life when threatened, then right to life cannot be defined through society or government.[/quote]

    Nope. You're assigning a value judgement of rightness and wrongness to your actions, actions based on the animal instincts of self-preservation, territoriality, and independence. Unfortunately, instinctual driven actions are not subject to moral censure or judgement, and are not relevant to the discussion.

    The Divine Right of Kings supersedes your presumed right to life, and if you kill the king's men who are excercising their freedom to burn your farm house down under the king's authority, your non-existent right to life doesn't protect you from the King's wrath.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Making rights arbitrary opens up doors which are best left closed.
    Rights are abitrary.

    The right to life doesn't extend to all humans, it's only applied to those humans who are lucky enough to be born.

    The right to own property was superseded by the Kelo vs New London decision.

    Your right to self-defense is not expanded to permit you to defend yourself against cops executing a search warrant on your home.

    How then, are these "absolute" rights you claim circumvented? Because they're not absolutes, they're abstract concepts INSIDE the law, and if your government re-writes the law, your rights get limited.

Page 10 of 38 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •