Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Realmfighter]

But.....

Who defines rights if they ideally didn't?

[ECrownofFire]

But.....

Who defines rights if they ideally didn't?

The people. Simple as that.

[Zrk2]

The government determines what those rights are, as well.

Oh hell no! Rights are inalienable and exist under all forms of government. The government has no say in what rights you truly have, just which ones you may legally exercise. For example, in the USSR people still had the right to property, they just could not exercise it.

[Realmfighter]

But when people are making laws then there is no difference between people and government and no one left to hate but themselves!

Slightly insane moral of this post:The Government are people to.

Oh hell no! Rights are inalienable and exist under all forms of government. The government has no say in what rights you truly have, just which ones you may legally exercise. For example, in the USSR people still had the right to property, they just could not exercise it.

Who made them in the first place, and why are they inalienable

[Zrk2]

They are inherent in morality. One could argue that rational thinking originated rights. It makes sense that every person is free to do with their own self as they wish. That is the basis of the right to property, from which all other rights are extrapolated.

[ECrownofFire]

They are inherent in morality. One could argue that rational thinking originated rights. It makes sense that every person is free to do with their own self as they wish. That is the basis of the right to property, from which all other rights are extrapolated.

Basically, the rights are there because they are. There is no "why" to them.

[Realmfighter]

They are inherent in morality. One could argue that rational thinking originated rights. It makes sense that every person is free to do with their own self as they wish. That is the basis of the right to property, from which all other rights are extrapolated.

Well, thens its good everyone agrees on matters of morality.

Whats the difference between a right that the government refuses to acknowledge and a right that doesn't exist at all?

Basically, the rights are there because they are. There is no "why" to them.

They will continue on even after all life has extinguished, as pillars of morality in the cold despair.

[Zrk2]

a RIGHT THE GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE IS (stupid caps lock, oh well) still there, just not officially. A right that doesnèt exist at all is just some jerk trying to get himslef some special perks.

[Realmfighter]

But if a government says that a right doesn't exist, who are you to say they are wrong just because they don't conform to your, apparently universal definition of right?

Your second proclamation confused even me.

[ECrownofFire]

They are inherent in morality. One could argue that rational thinking originated rights. It makes sense that every person is free to do with their own self as they wish. That is the basis of the right to property, from which all other rights are extrapolated.

Well, thens its good everyone agrees on matters of morality.

Whats the difference between a right that the government refuses to acknowledge and a right that doesn't exist at all?

The right that the government doesn't acknowledge is still there, and people probably still desire it. The right that doesn't exist is simply not there, there's nothing to it (literally, hehe).

Basically, the rights are there because they are. There is no "why" to them.

They will continue on even after all life has extinguished, as pillars of morality in the cold despair.

No, because there is no life to receive those rights.

But if a government says that a right doesn't exist, who are you to say they are wrong just because they don't conform to your, apparently universal definition of right?

Your second proclamation confused even me.

You've just stumbled upon the basis for morality, prepare for impact!

[Zrk2]

Ok, which one specifically?

[Aqizzar]

Yes, it will never work in the real world because there will always those who choose to use immoral means to achieve their ends. Which means government intervention will always be necessary, no matter how much I may detest it.

And at last we come to it.  Why even bother championing and explaining the always-shrink-government, free market everything ideal, if you straight up recognize that it can never work in the real world?  I don't like being bossed around more than anyone else, but I recognize the same real world that you do, so I try to figure out how it's real rules can be made into a better government, instead of trying to wish away all the problems you freely recognize with your platform and go right on stubbornly insisting it's perfect.

[Zrk2]

Because I am an idealist under my cynicism. If we always keep the ideal world in sight then we can work towards something similar to it that will work in reality. If I fought for anything less I could not achieve as much. (I think)

[ECrownofFire]

Because I am an idealist under my cynicism. If we always keep the ideal world in sight then we can work towards something similar to it that will work in reality. If I fought for anything less I could not achieve as much. (I think)

An idealistic cynic then? Or a cynical idealist? I think it'd be the second.

[Aqizzar]

Because I am an idealist under my cynicism. If we always keep the ideal world in sight then we can work towards something similar to it that will work in reality.

But you already admitted the "ideal" world you're working towards would collapse to rapacious corporatism because the real world is the real world.  The closer the world comes to your "ideal", the easier it is for the bad-scenario reality to take hold.  Why hold it up as an ideal, when you can recognize that no good can come of pursuing it?