WHAT IS A "RIGHT"? (As in the Bill of Rights)

by Terry 4 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • Terry
    Terry

    A RIGHT is that which can be exercised without anyone's permission.

    If you exist only because society permits you to exist--you have no right to your own life.

    A __permission__can be revoked at any time.

    Man is not, by nature, a lone wolf; he is a social animal and a contractual animal. Co-existence with other humans requires voluntary agreements of what is not tolerated and what is.

    A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act against his own interests his rights have been violated.

    If you have to obtain permission from society, a group, a person before you act--then you are not free, whether the permission is granted or not! Only a slave acts on permission of others.

    There is no such thing as a "right to a job"; there is only the right to free trade. It is a man's ability to work and do it better that gives him an edge.

    There is no "right to a home", only the right of free trade; a man may trade his work efforts for money and money for ownership or he may build the house himself.

    There are no "rights to a fair wage" nor to a "fair price". If no one CHOOSES to pay the price asked or work for the wage offered he is free to decline.

    There are no "rights of consumers" to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if nobody chooses to produce those things for consumption; there is only the right to do it for oneself.

    There are no rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees or of the old, the young or the unborn. There are only the RIGHTS OF MAN--rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals.

    Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect minorities from oppression by majorities. The smallest minority on Earth is..............................The Individual!

    An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living.

    It has been said that rights bring obligations. Obligations to whom? Imposed by whom?

    This implies that rights are a gift from the State!

    This would mean a man would have to buy off the state by offering his life. The draft is an attempt to impose such an obligation on a citizen. To buy off the state the citizen risks his life.

    The only obligation on an individual's rights comes from the nature of reality; which is things as they are. If one wishes one's own rights to be honored then the rights of others must be respected in return. This is fair barter.

    What are your views on what RIGHTS are and how they are derived?

  • candidlynuts
    candidlynuts

    thats a hard question.. like high school sociology question. i never took that lol.

  • Euphemism
    Euphemism

    Good presentation of the libertarian/classic liberal position there, Terry (even if it was a bit dogmatic). I would just take issue with one thing you said:

    Whenever a man is made to act against his own interests his rights have been violated.

    The issue is not merely what his (or her) interests are, but what s/he perceives them to be. The state may very rationally determine that it is in my interests not to drink alcohol, or not to stay up after midnight; but it is still violating my rights if it tries to forbid those things, even if it happens to be correct about the merits.

  • logansrun
    logansrun

    There are some fatal flaws in the liberatarian position:

    Libertarians take little account of market externalities, both positive and negative.

    Libertarians do not seem to understand that it is often in one's rational self-interest to care for the common interest.

    Libertarians take a naive view of human nature, often not taking into account the consequences of the concentration of power in the hands of a few.

    Libertarians are often two-dimensional in their rationality, not acknowledging the negative ripple effects that unrestricted laissez-faire brings.

    In short, hyper-libertarianism sounds good on paper. Kind of like communism in that respect.

    And there are other things as well. And, Terry, you do come across as very dogmatic. People can see that pretty clearly, dude.

    B.

    PS.

  • Terry
    Terry
    Logansrun:

    There are some fatal flaws in the liberatarian position:

    Libertarians take little account of market externalities, both positive and negative.

    Libertarians do not seem to understand that it is often in one's rational self-interest to care for the common interest.

    Libertarians take a naive view of human nature, often not taking into account the consequences of the concentration of power in the hands of a few.

    Libertarians are often two-dimensional in their rationality, not acknowledging the negative ripple effects that unrestricted laissez-faire brings.

    In short, hyper-libertarianism sounds good on paper. Kind of like communism in that respect.

    And there are other things as well. And, Terry, you do come across as very dogmatic. People can see that pretty clearly, dude.

    B.

    PS.

    Good post! I agree, libertarians are actually anarchists; they just don't realize it.

    Dogmatic? Moi?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit