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 34 of 38 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 377

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

  1. #331
    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 EpicDude86 View Post
    Are you guys just going to keep calling each other liars? If you ask someone to prove something and they say they did, go quote their damn post if the information isn't present. Does anyone know how to scroll backwards???
    I do.

    They won't.

    if they actually read the proof (they already have), they have to refute it before claiming it's false. They can't do that, so they merely restate their proposition as if repitition makes it truer.

    Not much we can do about their refusal to be logical.

    The big question is that since libertarianism is perfectly possible without any theory of natural rights, why are they bothering to hold outmoded false ideas?

    Example:

    I've proven that natural rights do not exist.

    If they do not exist, I do not have the right to own people, which, btw is a right held by some humans over others throughout history, and is still exercised this day in some corners of the world.

    Since I don't own people, the limits of my proper control over them are those areas in which their exercise of their own freedoms overlaps my freedoms and my life. They can't be parking their oxen on my wheat, I can't be keeping my donkey in their hut. The boundaries for such freedoms were originally based on who won the fight, and evolved as society evolved, so now our lawyers fight instead.

    Too bad the lawyers don't get bloodied, but can't have everything.

  2. #332
    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?

    Natural rights do not say that you'd ever have the right to own another human. In fact, they'd say the exact opposite. But don't let me stand in your way of misrepresenting arguments.
    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. #333
    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
    What's your proof? Was it your abortion argument which was a misrepresentation of my argument that was the proof. How about the slavery argument which was a misrepresentation of my argument which was the proof? Which one of your misrepresentations of my argument disproved my argument?
    No. They weren't mispresentations.

    They were accurate, but you have to characterize them falsely because you can't refute them, and yet...you can't prove the existence of natural rights independently.

    Of course you can't, since I've proven they don't exist already.

    So, again, for the weak minded and dishonest.

    The following claims regarding natural rights are made:

    1) Everyone has them.
    2) They're innate.
    3) They're "discovered", not created.
    4) Rights are inalienable. Whether you can exercise them isn't important, by golly, you got'em.


    Case One:
    According to NRT (natural right theory) all humans have the right to life.

    According to science, human life begins at conception. (This is not an abortion debate, so no one quibble, go waste time elsewhere.)

    So from conception the human fetus has a right to life, ie, NO ONE can legally kill it.

    Assume the fetus is female.

    It has been "discovered" that human females have the right to murder their babies. Because rights are "innate" and must be "discovered", and not created, all human females have always had this right to commit murder in their own wombs.

    So the human female's "right" to murder unborn children trumps the unborn baby's right to life.

    So, the unborn child has the inalienable right to life. This means he has an inalienable right to not be murdered, since naturally death comes to all via natural causes eventually.

    And the incubator has the inalienable right to commit murder upon her unborn child. This is a specific volitional act.

    According to NRT, a child then has a right to not be murdered and the mother has the right to commit murder upon that same child.

    These rights conflict, and either the mother has no right to commit murder on her unborn children, or those children have no right to live.

    One may exist.

    The other may exist.

    One right alienates the other, and it's strictly the mother's choice which right is exercised.

    Therefore, (4) is violated. People do not have inalienable rights.

    Since only one right, that of life or murder, is allowed, the other right is not innate. But which right is solely determined by the mother's actions...long after her birth. Is this a Schrodinger Cat situation? Are rights nothing but probability functions dependent upon the observer? If so, then rights are not innate but subject to the whim of the individual, and possibly subject to the whim of some other individual, and the in the case of the baby's right to life. Her mother's choice, not hers, dictates if her right to life exists or her mother's right to murder her exists.

    Rights are shown to be dependent upon the will of others, and therefore are not, cannot be "innate".

    Therefore (2) is violated. Rights are not innate.

    Therefore (3) is violated. If rights are not innate, they are derived from some other source and are not "discovered" but created in some fashion.

    Also, (1) is violated. Either the baby or the mother had a right. Not both.

    I'm not proving this again, either refute it, using logic, or continue to post your nonsense.

  4. #334
    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
    Natural rights do not say that you'd ever have the right to own another human. In fact, they'd say the exact opposite. But don't let me stand in your way of misrepresenting arguments.
    I have the right to own property.

    If this was the 18th century, I'd be able to go to the auction house and by me some walkin' talkin' property.

    Are you now saying people do not have the natural right to own property?

  5. #335
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    Really? You have the right to be part of the militia, but you don't have the right to refuse to register for the selective service. If drafted, you don't have the right to refuse to serve, unless given a legal exemption.
    Um the power of Congress to raise an army =/= a right.

  6. #336
    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?

    That's because you're misrepresenting the argument.

    A) Natural rights aren't the only "rights". There are also Legal "rights" (though I'd call them privilege)
    B) While all humans share the same base rights (natural rights), the use of violence and force can affect the exercise of those rights.
    C) Legal rights and natural rights can be in conflict with each other, the one which "wins" is the one enforced through government force.
    D) Even if a natural right is not exercisable by a group does not mean the right does not exist. The natural right still exists, it's merely being suppressed. Legal rights are floppy and can be "removed" (hence my labeling of them as privilege). Natural rights are static.

    Hence, both of your arguments are MISREPRESENTATIONS of the argument. As I had stated from the get go. Because you're pretending that all rights are either legal rights or natural rights and by defining rights through purely functional means.

    Let's take your slave argument for instance.

    There were slaves, true. But slavery was never a right, it was a legal process codified through a govenrment; but it was not a right. You don't have the right to own another human as you infringe upon their right of life, liberty, and property (not withstanding that you can't actually have alludial title over another human). The slaves still had the right to life, liberty, and property; the exercise of these rights were forcibly suppressed via the government. This is understood explicitly in the rise and fight against slavery. If the slaves truly had no right to life, liberty, or property than there is no justifiable reason by which they could revolt or run away or even complain. However, we recognize and understand that anyone enslaved would have obvious contention to that state of being. That is because innately that person has the right to liberty.

    The same with abortion, a legal "right" is enforced via government force at the cost of suppression of the exercise of a natural right. The human life has its right, and its right to life is violently suppressed by the government. It's not that the right doesn't exist, it's that force has been applied to suppress the exercise of it. In the natural state, free of force, all humans enjoy the right to life, liberty, and property.

    Hence all your arguments are misrepresentations of the natural rights argument and you actually didn't prove a single thing other than you're able to completely mischaracterize an argument. Though I wouldn't tout that as a good thing.
    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."

  7. #337
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

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

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    That what I thought, about this "rights" business..
    I voted "other"

    The OP is against federally funded health care...a guess ....

    The more people misbehave, the fewer rights they will have.
    In this case, it is the insurance companies.
    Um no the individual now faces 5 years imprisonment and up to a $250,000 fine for not exercising their "right" to healthcare.

  8. #338
    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
    1) Everyone has them.
    2) They're innate.
    3) They're "discovered", not created.
    4) Rights are inalienable. Whether you can exercise them isn't important, by golly, you got'em.
    Your starting assumptions are wrong, my post above.
    Last edited by Ikari; 11-10-09 at 08:34 PM.
    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."

  9. #339
    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?

    Innate though is not part of the word rights. So innate rights are innate but not all rights are innate.


    I think it's about time for a venn diagram....

  10. #340
    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
    Innate though is not part of the word rights. So innate rights are innate but not all rights are innate.


    I think it's about time for a venn diagram....
    Hahah, maybe. Natural rights are innate, legal "rights" are not.
    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."

Page 34 of 38 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... 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
  •