Re: The existence of that right isn't what I'm arguing.
Cannoli Send a noteboard - 18/01/2010 11:57:33 AM
I'm simply wondering how you can argue that the right to economic freedom supersedes other rights (e.g. right to free speech).
They are all part of the same thing. You have the right to use your voice (or other means of expression) as you wish, too. Both rights are about doing what you want with what is yours.How exactly WOULD free speech interfere with property rights?
That would depend on your philosophy, wouldn't it? A religious person would probably claim that these rights are given to man by God, whereas someone less inclined to metaphysics might claim that rights exist only insofar as one possesses the power of self-determinance.
Your last question is a simple reversal of my question, so I don't consider it particularly valid. I'm simply wondering how you justify a worldview that places "[the right] to food, shelter, health or health care, or clothing or employment" as mere subsidiary rights of "what he or she can obtain through an exchange of goods or services."
Because those others are not the same kind of rights. There is no natural right to things that might be possessed by another. Natural rights, like freedom of speech & worship & action and property, do not require the surrender of others' rights. Your hypothetical rights to health care & food & the like presume a right to take those from others. The right to property does not. As long as everyone's property or natural rights are respected, they do not infringe upon others' property or natural rights. You cannot say that it is possible to grant everyone food, shelter etc, without violating the natural or property rights of others. What, in short, is your rationale for the sole existence of the right to economic freedom when you discard the existence of other postulated rights that are declared equally intrinsic to the human condition and thus originate from the same source?
Declared by whom? What source? I do not acknowledge those, because they are not rights, they are offers of gifts. Your disingenuous attempt to legitimize those fads by juxtaposing them with natural rights does not change the essential nature. The rights to property & liberty require others to back off. The rights you mention require others to give. No one has the right to demand action of another, which is what those BS rights to shelter, health care, etc. assert. Property rights merely demand that no one interfere with the owner's rights to do as he wishes. They do not demand that others subsidize his property or contribute to make his owning it possible. In other words, natural rights are more like restraints upon how others may act upon you, whereas your made-up rights are demands of actions by others. There is no legitimate basis for demanding people supply those things, and they would all require the intervention of an outside force. There are no natural restrictions on human freedoms. There is no restraint upon action or speech or use of property that does not occur without human intervention. On the other hand, a man alone in the wilderness has no way of being provided with his so-called rights to food, shelter or health care. He is free to speak, act or use his possessions as he pleases, but without human society, he cannot be awarded what you claim are equivalent rights to what he does possess. Where human society is the only thing that can infringe upon natural rights, it is the only thing that can provide your theoetical rights, and thus they are NOT natural.
Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
Suspension of Disbelief with Politics
05/01/2010 06:46:53 PM
- 1426 Views
I don't completely agree, but this is similar to everyone retroactively hating Tom Cruise's movies.
05/01/2010 08:47:19 PM
- 679 Views
I always thought that was just stupid of people (and that includes 3/4 of my family)
09/01/2010 05:27:41 PM
- 596 Views
LOL...~hands Dannymac a clue~
06/01/2010 04:51:43 AM
- 802 Views
Just judging him based on what he writes...
06/01/2010 04:17:49 PM
- 640 Views
Then read what he writes. I read him every week and he IS a liberal.
09/01/2010 11:45:41 PM
- 564 Views
Wait...I support same-sex marriage. Just not all that other crap.
07/01/2010 06:18:40 AM
- 602 Views
trespasses against persons is subjective.
07/01/2010 07:09:22 AM
- 669 Views
Actually, it isn't.
07/01/2010 03:46:30 PM
- 569 Views
ah I wasn't aware you were referring to a legal term
07/01/2010 05:37:10 PM
- 599 Views
Considering that it's made-up BS, why should it be?
09/01/2010 11:01:31 PM
- 597 Views
what about those not capable of walking away?
10/01/2010 03:51:10 AM
- 522 Views
Who has the right to say a parent is abusing the child, and what prevents abuses the other way?
10/01/2010 09:13:45 AM
- 753 Views
Re: trespasses against persons is subjective.
09/01/2010 11:12:57 PM
- 621 Views
but it is wrong to deny the legal ramifications of marriage
10/01/2010 04:19:02 AM
- 709 Views
Civics & economics 101
10/01/2010 08:47:07 AM
- 706 Views
That's not Economics 101. That's practically Anarcho-capitalism.
13/01/2010 11:54:22 PM
- 571 Views
Duh.
14/01/2010 03:00:56 AM
- 591 Views
The existence of that right isn't what I'm arguing.
18/01/2010 09:01:07 AM
- 554 Views
Re: The existence of that right isn't what I'm arguing.
18/01/2010 11:57:33 AM
- 864 Views
I'll agree to the trespass against persons
09/01/2010 06:07:29 PM
- 628 Views
What bullshit you write.
10/01/2010 01:30:02 AM
- 537 Views
He's such a parody of himself, one wonders if he's not a fake identity created by rightists. *NM*
10/01/2010 05:14:31 AM
- 311 Views
So what you're saying is people shouldn't take movies to heart ?
06/01/2010 01:39:21 PM
- 619 Views
That's just the point.
06/01/2010 04:15:48 PM
- 703 Views
indeed. they are not "soldiers"
07/01/2010 07:12:32 AM
- 570 Views
that's a weasel script
07/01/2010 09:55:13 AM
- 595 Views
I completely disagree with you about Avatar.
06/01/2010 02:18:22 PM
- 671 Views
would you have felt better if they were albino aliens?
07/01/2010 07:16:20 AM
- 604 Views
You really have a habit of missing the point of my posts in the name of snide remarks.
07/01/2010 03:47:36 PM
- 646 Views
It's just simplistic. Like a Disney movie, but no songs. What really bugs me is that the Company
08/01/2010 08:48:32 AM
- 655 Views
You know what it is for me...
06/01/2010 07:37:10 PM
- 689 Views
That's totally what it is, hah
08/01/2010 08:57:10 AM
- 698 Views
See...that's where I'm different.
08/01/2010 03:33:30 PM
- 599 Views
Uh oh, you used the "c" word...
08/01/2010 07:47:40 PM
- 673 Views
I hate it when you sound like an actual preacher
08/01/2010 10:03:28 PM
- 587 Views
Aw, I liked some of those sentences.
08/01/2010 11:07:15 PM
- 532 Views
Isn't that a Bible quote? *NM*
09/01/2010 12:33:51 AM
- 317 Views
That seems like a pretty dangerous philosophy.
09/01/2010 06:24:35 AM
- 634 Views
Agreed. It also sounds absurd. I have +2 Armor of Christ. How about you? *NM*
10/01/2010 06:42:24 PM
- 296 Views
Ok, so apart from political subtexts,
07/01/2010 05:40:28 AM
- 592 Views
You have to admire the world building though
07/01/2010 07:27:13 AM
- 505 Views
And why is it that anyone who can <spoilers!>
08/01/2010 09:03:45 AM
- 787 Views
Exactly! *Same spoilers ^he^ had.
08/01/2010 04:59:16 PM
- 600 Views
You're looking at it from the outsider point of view
08/01/2010 10:12:15 PM
- 575 Views
I don't buy it.
09/01/2010 06:29:07 AM
- 601 Views
Especially with the warrior tribe mentality they all have!
10/01/2010 08:25:57 PM
- 464 Views
if there were all these hotshot warriors trying
11/01/2010 12:22:19 AM
- 547 Views
Re: Exactly! *Same spoilers ^he^ had.
09/01/2010 01:27:59 PM
- 761 Views
It's pretty easy to conquer one of those things
10/01/2010 08:27:20 PM
- 765 Views