Active Users:1094 Time:01/11/2024 12:55:55 AM
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*
Reply to message
Suspension of Disbelief with Politics - 05/01/2010 06:46:53 PM 1426 Views
Oh I hear ya! - 05/01/2010 08:35:38 PM 649 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
Which is just as silly, yes. *NM* - 05/01/2010 08:48:55 PM 310 Views
Who hates Top Gun? That movie R0X0RS! *NM* - 07/01/2010 06:19:48 AM 343 Views
You know, I never understood that - 07/01/2010 07:28:36 AM 561 Views
What?? Min Rep is fantastic! *NM* - 07/01/2010 08:19:30 AM 328 Views
*Stands on counter* I am the last Poet Bartender - 07/01/2010 02:08:56 PM 603 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
the point is... - 06/01/2010 11:25:46 PM 618 Views
talk about needing a clue - 09/01/2010 06:01:14 PM 570 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
You are not wrong - 10/01/2010 04:43:55 PM 582 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
okay, I can agree on your points - 10/01/2010 05:14:32 PM 507 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
Apaprently I misread your earlier post. Very good points. *NM* - 19/01/2010 01:17:01 AM 299 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
uhm...nothing in nature shares with all. - 10/01/2010 05:28:04 AM 591 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
Precisely *NM* - 06/01/2010 04:45:58 PM 333 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
well, it seems like it was less "lazy script writing" - 07/01/2010 05:38:35 PM 559 Views
huh. Well, my hunch would be - 07/01/2010 10:34:35 PM 689 Views
what makes them "look like military"?? - 09/01/2010 06:15:24 PM 646 Views
arguing the natives as terrorists would be a stretch *NM* - 09/01/2010 10:39:13 PM 315 Views
guessing you've seen it by now - 10/01/2010 12:48:57 PM 505 Views
AMEN *NM* - 09/01/2010 06:09:27 PM 288 Views
if the foo shits, wear it *NM* - 09/01/2010 06:08:11 PM 344 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 know what it is for me... - 06/01/2010 07:37:10 PM 689 Views
That's understandable - 07/01/2010 07:25:23 AM 563 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
I suppose the lesson is to not read about celebrities' politics? - 08/01/2010 06:22:10 PM 468 Views
But that's kind of the point... - 08/01/2010 06:51:05 PM 578 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
I guess maybe from an epistle? *NM* - 09/01/2010 02:44:36 AM 294 Views
Yup, Romans 8:31 - 09/01/2010 11:36:46 PM 481 Views
it's not that it was bad - 09/01/2010 01:01:21 AM 641 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
he he *NM* - 11/01/2010 12:20:26 AM 274 Views
Maybe a little. - 11/01/2010 06:06:24 AM 683 Views
I like your philosophy. Thanks for sharing! *NM* - 11/01/2010 03:08:09 PM 265 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
Both of you are more or less right - 08/01/2010 08:59:34 AM 527 Views
He DID write the original screenplay, I thought? - 08/01/2010 10:04:07 PM 536 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
Poor scriptwriting *NM* - 11/01/2010 12:56:24 AM 281 Views
oh come on - 11/01/2010 01:00:40 AM 591 Views
Gher's right. It's Plot convinience, with a capital P *NM* - 13/01/2010 09:42:07 PM 283 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
Re: It's pretty easy to conquer one of those things - 10/01/2010 08:56:38 PM 537 Views
seriously - 11/01/2010 12:23:58 AM 506 Views

Reply to Message