- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 35,027
- Reaction score
- 19,489
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Then we differ - a right that's not attainable doesn't exist
Well, that is nt true, and your own word useage shows you agree. In your parlance, a right is the "should", not the "is".
If a US Muslim claimed a natural right to perform an honor killing, does he have that right ?
No, because a right does not infringe on the rights of others. As I have said a few times now, rights are personal, that which your exert over someone else is not a right.
If you can't exercise it, you don't have it
Yes, you do. Again, you have a right to pursue happiness.. if you decide tomorrow that you want to learn the accordion, then tomorrow you can buy an accordion. That you haven't yet chosen to act on the right to own an accordion doesn't mean you don't have a right to own an accordion.
You're like a slave saying he should be free
Because a slave shoul be free. Do you disagree with that?
Natural rights exist on in a person's Utopia of the mind.
Yes and no, history is filled with people who have pulled closer to that utopia because they believed in what should be.
It's a wish list and nothing more.
False. If you truly believed that then you would forgo all political opinion because what is today is what it should be.
No, you're speaking about liberties and state granted rights
Nope. The state doesn't grant rights, the state only impedes rights or protects rights. It doesn't grant them.
Your mind is yours while you have it
Not by your argument. If you believe that ownership of self is an illusion and future theft is the proof, then you don't own yourself right now. By your argument you can't claim ownership to anything that can be taken from you.
Poor question, ownership is a legal status, theft is illegal
Well, no it isn't. The law is to protect your rights, not to grant them to you. By your argument a person who has stolen your phone is the rightful owner. Also, by your argument, you can't argue with the law if the government takes your phone because there is nothing above the law to judge it by. You no doubt disagree with many laws, which defeats your definition of what rights are.
No, a right exists if you have the ability to exercise it
You are now changing your argument. You have the ABILITY to exercise a right even if the law tells you not to. People buy marijuana all the time even when the law tells them not to. They are exercising their right to pursue of happiness regardless of the law that tells them not to.
Anyone who supports the legalization of pot is, whether intended or not, presenting a natural rights argument.
Yes it does
No, it doesn't. A right is not an outcome.
If you government denies you what you think is/should be a right, then you don't have it.
Again you're confused with what should be the case
Yes, I do. My RIGHT is the expression of what I SHOULD be able to to, my RIGHT is what drives me to abolish the law that impedes my effort to exercise my right. Again (and again and again and again) a right is not an outcome.
No, I meant you might have a different list of rights you should have..another man might have a diiferent list
You might disagree with his list and he with yours.
Indeed, but there is a simple calculus to natural rights that reduces rights to a set group of indivisible truths that are self evident. If you don't believe you have the right to life, liberty and happiness apart from what government grants you then that is your own personal hell, don't expect the rest of us to go along with that.