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 27 of 38 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 377

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

  1. #261
    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
    A woman with the "right" to murder her baby means the baby can't have the right to life.

    That's different that what you're saying, which is that someone who commits murder that then faces legal sanctions deprives their victim of their life, not of their right to it. After all, if they didn't have the right to live, there'd be no basis for prosecuting the murder.

    Oh, wait. The LAW denies the unborn their right to life when it allows the incubator the "right" to kill that child. What the law can giveth, the law can taketh away, and if it wasn't the law that gave the child the right to life in the first place, it couldn't have taken it away.
    Again, this is a definition of functionality. You're basically saying that because I can be killed, I don't have the right to life. You are confusing legal "rights" and natural rights. Abortion does infringe upon the natural right to life of the unborn infant. This is accomplished through force exerted by the State. It doesn't mean that the natural right to life does not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No, it's all about the fact that the theory of natural rights is wrong.
    You merely state this as a case and use improper comparison to arrive there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    "Lying"?

    Just because your theory is proven wrong doesn't mean I'm a liar. It means my logic is more coherent than yours.
    No, it merely means that you have purposefully constructed a misleading argument ignoring proper definition on favor of your own definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    If Elias Gonzalez uncle had picked up a gun when the government stormed his home, he would have been shot dead and no legal repercussions would have accrued upon his killer. If the uncle did not die, he would have been subject to prosecution and almost certainly would have spent time in prison.

    Hence the law removed his "right" to defend himself.

    The can only do that because it's the law that allowed those rights in the first place.
    No, it's allowed because outside force can be used to infringe upon the exercise of rights. The most notable form of that outside force is government force.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    The Constitution defines what the federal government is allowed to do. The federal government routinely exceeds these limits and all taxation above that required to finance constitutionally allowed programs is theft.

    Good luck on your restitution.
    Yes, government is dangerous and will overstep it's confinement if we do not watch and constrain it carefully enough. That doesn't mean rights don't exist, it means that the government is inherently dangerous and must be watched.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Under the US Constitution prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, slaves could object all they wanted to. And if they got too annoying, their owners could whip them mercilessly. The law didn't award slaves rights, but property owners had rights under the law.

    If a man has a right to own slaves, the slaves do not have the right to be not owned.

    It's really that simple.

    For your homework I suggest you start thinking about POWER, not rights.

    Power is what exists in the real world. The boot stamping on the human face forever imagery from 1984. The reality of Zyclone B. The gulag and the killing fields.
    Power can be used to infringe on the exercise of rights, true. The misrepresentation here is that you continually say that because it can be infringed upon, the right doesn't exist. If I can be killed, I don't have a right to life. If I can be stolen from, I don't have right to property, if I can be enslaved, I don't have the right to liberty. But these are functional definitions, not base rights. Governments can and will infringe upon the exercise of rights. Some of it is just, power granted to the government, as is the case with the criminal courts. Others are usurped, not granted powers, so the government can more efficiently operate (which is rather dangerous). There was never a right to own slaves. It was a practice, but the practice infringes upon the life, liberty, and property of another individual. The slaves always had the right to not be owned, they have right to their life and liberty. The government used force to infringe upon the exercise of these rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    So you're saying abortion is an injustice?
    I would say so. It also highlights the difference between legal "rights" and natural rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Oh! What you're saying is that there's a magical difference between right to life and right to control your own body. That one is inborn, the other is granted by the government. But isn't the right to not be a slave the essence of the right to control your own body? There are natural limits on the right to control your own body so that it isn't a contradiction to have a right to control your body so you can kill someone else, thereby depriving them of their life, hence violating their right to life?

    Good luck with that.
    No, this is a misrepresentation of what I'm saying. Either you do not understand what I am saying or you're purposefully misrepresenting my position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    So which right is "right"? The right to liberty or the right to own property, ie, slaves?
    Life, liberty, and property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You mean the government should be forbidden from killing him.
    I most certainly disagree with the death penalty. But there is a method by which the exercise of rights may be properly infringed upon by the government; and that is through the court system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    I'm sure the slave owners didn't steal their property's sweat, not from his brow, not from his pits.
    It refers to the product of his labor, and either you knew that and are making yet another misrepresentation, or you didn't understand what the statement refers to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    What if his action is to pull a trigger on a fully-automatic rifle in a crowded mall?
    To do so infringes upon the rights of others. If his action is to pull a trigger on a fully-automatic rifle, then there are consequences for such action. And the government will use its force to infringe upon his exercise of rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    What about hate-crime laws?
    That's BS, PC legislation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You mean besides the fact that it isn't true, that you're using your definition of natural rights to present examples of natural rights to support your definition in a purely circular fashion?
    No, I have presented information on the existence of natural rights. You have misrepresented me and my position to skew an argument so that you can win. That's strawman.
    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."

  2. #262
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    We constructed a government to protect what our freedoms. That does not prove "natural rights" exist. The government was engineered to satisfy the desires of the people of the time, irrespective of the reality of "natural rights" or not.
    Where did these freedoms come from, if they pre-exist the government?

  3. #263
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,749

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Likewise.
    Otherwise, it's just a bunch of mindless, fanatical handwaving nonsense.
    Yes, but unfortunately, I asked you to back your claims up first. I await you doing so. I have no obligation to do jack squat until you do.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #264
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,749

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari
    You may as well ask to prove love.
    I can prove love. It's a complex biochemical reaction in the brain which can be measured by testing blood chemistry and by using modern brain scanning techniques.

    So... where is *ANYTHING WHATSOEVER THAT PROVES NATURAL LAW?!?!?!?!?!*
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  5. #265
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I can prove love. It's a complex biochemical reaction in the brain which can be measured by testing blood chemistry and by using modern brain scanning techniques.
    You can measure "love" by testing someone's "blood chemistry"? How does that work, exactly?

    Also, what is the operational definition of "love" as it pertains to neural activity? I'm eager to receive your tutelage.

    So... where is *ANYTHING WHATSOEVER THAT PROVES NATURAL LAW?!?!?!?!?!*
    You don't even know what you're asking.

    Natural law is a conclusion about morality. Morality cannot be proven, though it can be rational and logical. The morality of natural law is based upon biological and psychological axioms which can be proven, however, the conclusion we arrive at based upon those axioms is not "provable", nor does it need to be in order to be valid. You can disagree with a moral sentiment but asking for proof of its existence is as absurd as it is perplexing.

    When someone says "natural rights" all they are saying is that a person should be permitted to live in accordance with their will. This moral sentiment is based upon certain biological and psychological axioms pertaining to humans.

    So, you either agree that people should be permitted to live in accordance with their wills or you don't. There's really no "proving" it.
    Last edited by Ethereal; 11-10-09 at 06:05 AM.

  6. #266
    Advisor LiveUninhibited's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-11-10 @ 03:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    549

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Where did these freedoms come from, if they pre-exist the government?
    Social context + logic. Imagine how much of a head start we would have gotten if people recognized universal rights early on instead of only in the context of their own tribes. Tribalism may be a natural way for people to organize, but is clearly destructive and less conducive to quality of life (compared to cooperating on a larger level) for all involved. Nationalism is the last idiotic vestige of this us-and-them tendency that allows us to dehumanize those superficially unlike us, rather than utilizing and respecting them in relationships of reciprocity.

  7. #267
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Yes, but unfortunately, I asked you to back your claims up first. I await you doing so. I have no obligation to do jack squat until you do.
    That's quite cowardly of you.
    But then, given that you know you cannot provide an answer to my request, it is expected.

  8. #268
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    Social context + logic.
    So, you agree that our rights are not granted to us by our government.

  9. #269
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,749

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    That's quite cowardly of you.
    But then, given that you know you cannot provide an answer to my request, it is expected.
    No, I'm just not letting you weasel your way out of answering a question by asking another question. It's not at all surprising that you'd try.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  10. #270
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,749

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal
    You can measure "love" by testing someone's "blood chemistry"? How does that work, exactly?
    While we don't necessarily know all the details yet, we can at least provide objective evidence that love, as an emotion, exists. It might be wildly impractical, but we could test to see if someone is, in fact, in love or just lying about it by hooking them up to a bunch of machines. There is an objective way to test for the presence or absence of love by doing blood tests and brain scans.

    Natural law is a conclusion about morality. Morality cannot be proven, though it can be rational and logical. The morality of natural law is based upon biological and psychological axioms which can be proven, however, the conclusion we arrive at based upon those axioms is not "provable", nor does it need to be in order to be valid. You can disagree with a moral sentiment but asking for proof of its existence is as absurd as it is perplexing.
    No, it's a statement about reality and as such needs to be backed up. You need to make a logical case, one that you claim can be proven yet you have done nothing whatsoever to prove it. Precisely how do you know that natural law exists? Exactly how is it that you can tell which specific laws are natural and which ones are not? These are questions that keep getting asked and keep getting ignored by the libertarian crowd.

    So, you either agree that people should be permitted to live in accordance with their wills or you don't. There's really no "proving" it.
    That's like saying you either agree with gravity or you don't. If you don't like gravity, you're still bound by it. Therefore, either natural law is a true postion, at which point everyone is bound by it like it or not, or it's a false position, at which point no one is bound by it like it or not. But in either case, it needs to be a defensible position, not one that you simply embrace because it appeals to you emotionally and you want it to be true.

    So far, that's all you libertarians have done. It's a religious faith to you, nothing more.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

Page 27 of 38 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... 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
  •