There have been so many battles, of late, over what constitutes a right, and what the source of individual rights is. As the discussions have unfolded, there have been three different points of view expressed that deserve attention and consideration.
The first conception of rights is championed by Scott, who believes that rights are merely a collective construct. This belief seems to state that, since there is no such thing as a God, or Creator, that there can be no such thing as an "absolute" right that exists outside of human fabrication. If humans do fabricate a notion of rights, that notion can only be derived through an agreement between individuals in a collective. Under this assumption, rights will differ from one polity to the next, as each collective defines what rights in their locale will look like and how they will operate. (Lemme know if this condensed version has left something out, or is incorrect in some way.)
My criticism of this conception, which is also shared by many, is that Scott is not describing individual rights, but only individual privileges handed out by society. Such privileges cannot be rights as they can be revoked by the society that gave them. In other words, you don't have a true "right" to anything. You are reliant on the shifting whims of society as the basis of your continued existence. Anything that shifts cannot be a stable enough platform on which to construct something as unchanging as an inherent "right" to something. This argument automatically fails as a framework for defining an "UNALIENABLE RIGHT," as described in the Declaration of Independence.
The second conception of rights was argued by Tom, who seems to believe that individual rights exist because we exist. This argument seems to state that since we are alive, we have a right to continue that existence. Since that existence relies upon certain elements for its sustenance--such as the pursuit of happiness, self defense, the ownership and control of property, etc.--then these elements logically constitute rights that exist to reinforce and perpetuate that essential right to live. (Again, lemme know if I left something out, or if something is incorrect.)
My criticism of this conception of rights is that there is no built-in enforcement measure, so there can be no "right" to anything. The reason Tom used this argument was to enable those who do not believe in a God to believe in rights. Basing our rights on the fact that we are alive leaves too many problems for us to resolve for it to be the end-all solution for atheists who want to believe in a system of individual rights. If life on earth is merely the result of chance chemical reactions and genetic mutations, then life is really an accident of nature. If that is the case, then how can anyone claim a right to anything? An accident shouldn't even exist! Under this scenario, if I put a gun to your head and pulled the trigger, so what? There is no consequence to me, other than what humans mete out. If the only consequence that occurs comes from other people, who are also accidents, then how can you base a concept of "unalienable rights" upon that? It does not logically work. If an asteroid hit the earth tomorrow and killed everyone, so what? Life was just an accident anyway. People here don't have a right to life. In order for a right to mean something, there must be some kind of outside enforcement of it to give it force in nature. If not, then it is only an idea that exists in someone's brain, which is just as real as the economic bologna that Marx made up.
The third conception of rights is championed by yours truly. I believe that individual rights are given to us by our Creator and that the notion of "rights" is meaningless unless they are discoverable and enforceable. For me a right cannot exist unless there is a universal, or natural, law to define it, and a consequence to enforce it.
William Blackstone explained that the laws of nature are the will of God in the universe, and the laws of nature's God are the revelations of God to man (contained in the Scriptures) to help us understand the natural laws that exist. Living in harmony with the natural law makes people happy, prosperous and free. It is these natural laws, some of which have been discovered to us by God in Scripture, that define and enforce the rights of man.
For example, the law that "thou shalt not kill" demonstrates that we have a right to life. As the Creator has given us life--and, as the giver, only He has the right to take it away--He gave this law and an eternal consequence for the violation of the right to life. In this way the right to life is described and there is a punishment for the violation of this right that will be meted out when we are judged by God.
Violation of this law also brings unhappiness, a decrease in freedom and a weakening of the societal framework that is essential for prosperity. Because of these natural consequences of the violation of the right to life, society has the obligation to enforce this right for its own protection and security. As this is so, society has an obligation to create laws that are patterned after the laws of nature's God, that uphold the natural law, and, thus, uphold the rights of man. Without a law and a consequence to reinforce individual rights, we have no right to anything. Rights come from God, and He has told us what they are, through laws, and what the consequences for their violation are.
So, what are we to make of these competing arguments? Are there any other ways of viewing rights out there? Let's have this discussion here and explore this concept of rights that seems to be overwhelming everything else in the forum right now.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 964 reads
****
Have you even replied me once since I've posted in your thread?
I'll have to assume you can't defend your position any more if you've ignored all my questions for this long, or did I miss something? I even wrote you a private message.
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
Of course it is exceptional. I wrote it.
Sorry, meant to reply to another comment
If one can violate a law, then all should be able to violate the same law...the question is: If everyone violates the same law, is this a world in which we can live?:
We already live in the world where people are OK to lie, people are OK to steal without getting their hands chopped off, men are OK to cheat on their wives without being prosecuted. It's not too bad to live in, is it? In addition, nations commit murder against another, why wouldn't this be a good place to live?
Better some murdered than all dead, right?
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
"God has destroyed nations. Is that not enforcement? Just because you have made the choice not to believe that is not evidence that it has not occurred. The creator argument is the only argument that holds any water in the discussion about rights. Anything else is merely a feeble, flailing attempt to create a system of justice without a God. Philosophers have been trying to do it for centuries. Are you smarter than all of them?"
Dude, ummmm, you appear to be unhinged. A healthy mud bath on acid followed by electro-shock perhaps?
No god has ever destroyed a nation. Natural occurences like volcanoes and hurricanes and earthquakes and floods and diseases have, from time to time, had some rather serious negative effects on the survival of humans. In biblical terms "nations" were merely tribes of desert dwellers that were actually related to other tribes through their genes. Even so, there is no "evidence" that any of these tribes were "destroyed". In the Mormom delusion, a nation of whites came to America in like 600 BC on a boat or something, and then were defeated by an evil nation of Indians... Isn't that how the fairy tale goes? And then the very last to live wrote a book... and then a conman found the book... and now we have a weird cult right smack dab in the middle of America...
Humans really are just half a chromosone away from monkeydom...
The idiocy of giving God credit selectively.
I respect Fred Phelps a lot more, at least he's consistently pessimistic and thanks God for everything bad that happens to Americans.
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
"Nonetheless, I'd rather be full of bravado then the self-righteousness it takes to make a statement like this: "It is not me against the world, but me trying to uplift humanity to a level at least twenty seven pubic hairs above a baboon.""
So the man who stays home and takes what others give him (his liberty) and then brags about it, is preferable to the man who opens his mouth and tries to tell you (in glowing and fiery stawman terms), just where you get that liberty from and how to get more of it?
You get more liberty through education and changing minds. Ron Paul came to understand this as people began to understand him. There is a movement afoot that seems to accept this by its actions (and not its rhetoric, as I am discovering).
Everybody wants to deny the one thing that will grant them the rights they covet, and that is the collective they are trying to influence into thinking like they do, so that they may be given these rights they covet. "Individualism" died when we ran out of room. Try this thought experiment sometime... "how many "individuals" are there sitting in traffic?"
My evidence is displayed as websites for liberty, including this one, which are popping up all over the internet. These are all places designed to recruit like-minded thought, and to change the thoughts of the dreaded "collective" known as "the others", (or sometimes in more affectionate terms like "those bastards")...
The reason liberty minded folks have begun to coalesce to shift the mindset of the collective is because in reality, the collective rules your butt whether you want them to or not. Just aying they don't doesn't alter the fact one iota.
When I said good luck on changing the mindset of your collective earlier in the thread, I meant it.
Also, when I said earlier that your pursuits have the potential to make my life easier, I meant it.
Finally, when I said that this entire "debate" is simply a fundamentally different viewpoint on what constitutes a right, I meant it.
And that's just it. In the end, I simply disagree that I must beg the collective for my rights, nor convince them. Despite these metaphysical arguments, I accept that although I do not believe that "might makes (a) right", I know that "might often declares the victor". It is, again, at a basic and fundamental level simply how we view our rights that is forcing this debate.
I live my life and pursue my happiness. I have broken the law before in my life, and I do so carefully, because I thought the activity would bring me happiness and it was worth the inconvenience of straying outside the scope of what is legal. If the collective can be convinced of the importance of individual liberty, then I will take part as long as my efforts are do not make me unhappy. Currently, I am so disillusioned with the mindset of the American people (of the collective, if you want), that I do not think it's worth a huge amount of my time or resources to convince them that they are on a terrible path.
I still find political and philosophical debate fascinating, so I suppose in a way I am participating in the effort, but in a selfish way which stimulates me.
And really, if you do not wish to coerce a certain activity from me, if you do not wish to use the power of the state to make me live a different way, then you are not an enemy of mine and I wish you the best of luck. Our differences on the concept of natural rights are relatively insignificant compared to those who wish to use the power of the collective to tell me if I can own a handgun in my home.
But make no mistake, I would do so regardless. There are many others. There are millions of people who go against the will of the collective every day of every year.
And I am not anti-social nor am I a hermit, so if you would stop using that as an arguing point, it would be much appreciated.
then the collective finds its authority on a sandy foundation. Scott could be right that the state does proffer some of what we might consider to be rights to us, but when the state begins to take away rights that it did not first give, that is when people begin to speak of being oppressed. That is when the revolutions of the world begin to take shape. It requires a certain amount of freedom for a vibrant and prosperous society to be maintained. Once the collective, or the state, or whomever happens to be in power, oversteps that invisible line, then the people do their best to undo the chains that have been draped about their necks. Though not all revolutions are successful, it is true that all tyrannies can only be maintained by eradicating those who rise up to oppose them. In this way, tyranny is self-destructive. Obversely, only maintain the rights of man brings prosperity and freedom--but only to the degree that such rights are observed and guarded.
Did you check with God whether you still have your rights? Did you have to pay a renewal fee?
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
Ummmmmmm,
"And if I am right, then you never really get the rights that you want because you think you have to be given them by other people. Nobody is going to hand you some rights, certainly not the masses. Recognize that they are yours and fight "them" to get out of your business. It's a different mindset, granted, and the entire reason that we're still arguing about this is because we have fundamentally different opinions on what a right is."
You remind me of the cantankerous souls we have living in the trees around here, all still flying their Ron Paul for President signs, tucked up into the woods with properties that have the "Leave me the hell alone!" aura about them...
Teehee...
I undersand that attitude though I don't really possess it. I tend to be much more socially active in the world and my community means something to me.
It is not me against the world, but me trying to uplift humanity to a level at least twenty seven pubic hairs above a baboon.
You can stand naked and painted red white and blue in your yard shaking a shotgun at the world and I'll leave you alone. If you lived on the liberal West Coast, in fact, evreybody would leave you alone.
We'd all just assume you were someone's crazy uncle.
If you want to get in the water and stop the ugly fish from pooping in the stream, you have to understand what lives in the water.
Your brand of "I'll do as I damn well please!" only works in a society like ours. In Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Hitlerian Germany, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Haiti on a bad day, and Cuba between cleaning up after hurricanes, you'd be dead.
Rights and all.
See yas.
Wouldn't want to be yas!
Dead.
Your bravado makes me chuckle.
"You remind me of the cantankerous souls we have living in the trees around here, all still flying their Ron Paul for President signs, tucked up into the woods with properties that have the "Leave me the hell alone!" aura about them..."
This is purely an ad hominem attack. I enjoy discussing political and libertarian issues online, and yet these assumptions above paint an entirely different picture of who I am than reality. Why would you do that? What occurred which makes you think that you've got this all figured out?
"Teehee..."
Do you think the above was so clever that you would draw attention to it with a little written down, effeminate laugh to yourself?
"I undersand that attitude though I don't really possess it. I tend to be much more socially active in the world and my community means something to me."
What does any of this have to do with being socially active? Again, these assumptions you're making and stating are an attempt to convince somebody (I'm guessing yourself) that because I do not want to be coerced to live my life a certain way I must be an anti-social reject. These are just assumptions combined with insults. It reeks of desparation, but that's an assumption on my part.
"It is not me against the world, but me trying to uplift humanity to a level at least twenty seven pubic hairs above a baboon."
You're a saint, guy. What do you want me to say. Best of luck.
"You can stand naked and painted red white and blue in your yard shaking a shotgun at the world and I'll leave you alone. If you lived on the liberal West Coast, in fact, evreybody would leave you alone. We'd all just assume you were someone's crazy uncle."
Wieder, Herr Scott, warum? What are you going on about? What's the purpose here? What does nakedness, or red-white-and-blue, or any of this have to do with anything? You've created this ridiculous strawman of what you envision my life to be, and you've convinced yourself of its reality, and now you're painting the picture of this strawman all over the board. And it seriously looks desparate. Note: I'm saying it looks desparate, not that you are desparate... ;)
"Your brand of "I'll do as I damn well please!" only works in a society like ours. In Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Hitlerian Germany, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Haiti on a bad day, and Cuba between cleaning up after hurricanes, you'd be dead."
Lots of people died by those monsters. After a while, those men sought no authority but themselves. Not the collective, not the individual. Hussein's Sunni are an extreme minority in Iraq, the collective despised him. Hitler was still issuing orders long after he had lost popular support. Mao tried to starve the collective and Stalin simply murder it.
"See yas.
Wouldn't want to be yas!"
Does anybody still say this?
"Your bravado makes me chuckle."
I still disagree that stating facts can somehow be bravado, but that's another opinion of yours I'll take into consideration. Nonetheless, I'd rather be full of bravado then the self-righteousness it takes to make a statement like this: "It is not me against the world, but me trying to uplift humanity to a level at least twenty seven pubic hairs above a baboon."
Hey guy, best of luck uplifting humanity and all. I'll try to think of your long and arduous road while I'm enjoying the liberties and rights that you say I do not possess, or that I must beg a collective to obtain!
Your brand of "I'll do as I damn well please!" only works in a society like ours. In Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Hitlerian Germany, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Haiti on a bad day, and Cuba between cleaning up after hurricanes, you'd be dead.
Yes, and why would you be dead? not because God doesn't love you or they don't have a Constitution. But for one , people don't agree with you, for two, you are unarmed.
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
"If the collective decides that you and your family should probably be killed for the common good, and you are warned of this, do you try and do something about? What rights do you have that outweigh the wishes of the collective?"
You can try to do lots about it. You can even stand up and claim you have a right to disallow the killing.
The answer then, becomes in the outcome of the situation. If they say "yeah, you are prolly right. We agree, so therefore, we will not kill your family..." then you have effectively lobbied for the right of your family to live. If they say, "nahh, we do not agree. Kill them..." then your family will find out just how constant their right to live is.
It isn't an ivory tower argument because many people prefer a collective approach (a liberal, a socialist, a communist...) and will not grant you the rights you claim to possess.
If I am right, then you never really get the rights you want because you fail to convince those with a collective mindset that a stronger focus on individual rights benefits them collectively.
To someone with a liberal bent, claiming you have the right to "do whatever the hell I want!" just makes them shrink from your argument. You need them to accept your argument or you will not get the rights you claim are logical and yours. You defeat yourself right out of the gate.
"You can try to do lots about it."
Indeed! Certainly more than try and argue a solution. I would try Fight or Flight before I would attempt to reason with the mob. The mob is by nature unreasonable. Your collective mind has s*&% for brains.
"If I am right, then you never really get the rights you want because you fail to convince those with a collective mindset that a stronger focus on individual rights benefits them collectively."
And if I am right, then you never really get the rights that you want because you think you have to be given them by other people. Nobody is going to hand you some rights, certainly not the masses. Recognize that they are yours and fight "them" to get out of your business. It's a different mindset, granted, and the entire reason that we're still arguing about this is because we have fundamentally different opinions on what a right is.
"To someone with a liberal bent, claiming you have the right to "do whatever the hell I want!" just makes them shrink from your argument. You need them to accept your argument or you will not get the rights you claim are logical and yours. You defeat yourself right out of the gate."
Again, this is all assuming that I need their approval. I really don't, and that's not bravado. It's simply the truth. I don't have to convince them, though best of luck to you all in your quest to battle collectivists on their home turf. I'm serious, I hope you win, you will admittedly make my life easier, and if Ron Paul (or a clone of reasonable similarities) is a candidate at some point, I will get off my non-voting behind and vote for the man. I did for the GOP primaries recently, and I rarely vote.
When most or all people want you dead, you can only protect yourself so far for so long. Assuming they're willing to do it.
Yes you can try to reason, but you sure have faith in people who actually can believe killing you is ok. I don't! I'd just kill them, but there's only so many bullets and time I have.
A better example is, WHAT IF you are a murderer and the world wants you punished? What difference does it make? Can a murderer talk his way to life? NO. If the collective has decided, you can't argue with them, doesn't matter if you're just unlucky or a reasonably guilty murderer.
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
"""I understand the difference of opinion which exists, but take exception to your accusation that I am making untrue statements. These are metaphysical arguments. My observations show that I live my life with plenty of liberty, and more than the collective wishes me to have. These aren't untrue statements, and I ask that you consider this.
I never claimed to be an island. I take part in society. I do not hole myself up anywhere. I choose to associate with certain people, and refrain from other people and certain organizations. I am confused because you immediately associate any dealings with anybody as a genuflection to the power of the collective. I do not agree with that association."""
But the only way for your interpretation of your rights to exist, is through your willful assertion of them.
Therefore, if you are forced to use force to assert your rights, you really don't have them.
When the Declaration was written, the words were chosen with much consideration and care, and then they were agreed upon by those writing them. The collective gave acknowledgement to the rights of the individual.
Nothing has changed from then until now. There has been no magic altering the source of those rights. They were declared to be inaliable, and then agreed upon. It was the agreement that they were inaliable that made them inaliable.
Nothing has changed from then until now.
(Except, of course, the fact that people are no longer in agreement with the original intent of the founders).
The ideals of liberty must be taught and propigated, or they fade and go away. There is no source for them other than our agreement that we agree with them.
"The ideals of liberty must be taught and propigated, or they fade and go away. There is no source for them other than our agreement that we agree with them."
These are ivory tower debates.
I see your argument. It might come down to different definitions of "right", and that's fine.
I simply cannot see how, in my definition of the word "right", the collective society bestows them upon me. I believe that rights are determined logically, through reason. Somewhat loosely following the traditions of great Greek, Roman, Christian, British, and early American minds (along with the Austrian economists), there is little doubt in my tiny mind that were I have these rights regardless of the state (or collective, if you would rather).
There will always be those who seek to coerce others into doing what they want. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they do not. And here is where our definitions of "right" may differ: yours being that without the expression of these rights, they do not exist; mine being the right exists through reason, and therefore cannot be taken away. It is a fundamental natural right to defend oneself from aggression. You have no right to be victorious, but you have the right to defend yourself.
If the collective decides that you and your family should probably be killed for the common good, and you are warned of this, do you try and do something about? What rights do you have that outweigh the wishes of the collective?
If the collective decides that you and your family should probably be killed for the common good, and you are warned of this, do you try and do something about? What rights do you have that outweigh the wishes of the collective?
What CAN you do about it? What could any victim of a massacring revolution have done when they are caught in the crossfire of violence?
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
"What CAN you do about it? What could any victim of a massacring revolution have done when they are caught in the crossfire of violence?"
Hypothetically, of course, if the government comes after you and you have advance warning, are you going to grin and bear it?
I'm either going out in a blaze of glory, or more probable, I'll flee entirely. My life is my own to live, and the collective decisions do not establish my rights. I will reject the decisions of the collective, and most would I imagine. Everybody has a line where they no longer care about the decisions of the collective, and everybody's line is in a slightly different location. Do not be surprised that my line is a little closer to the now than yours, or try to tell me that the line does not exist for anybody.
Of course I would flee, in fact I might even kill people to protect myself and my family. But that's about all you can do, run and hide. You'll probably eventually be hunted down since the whole world is against you. I agree there's the line, and many people draw it closely already.
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
Absolutely, like the beautiful words : "MERCILESS INDIAN SAVAGES".
"1. By implication, you seem to believe that individualists are against free and voluntary association. There are groups of individuals, that does not take away their individualism."
"Free and voluntary" implies you have a choice to associate. Most people, by the nature of societal forces, do not. You are by defacto a member of the society in which you happen to live. The only way to remove yourself from this society, is to associate with it (thereby earning enough money to buy your dream property with the high fences). Claiming it to be otherwise is denying the reality in which you find yourself.
"2. Advocates of liberty are not seeking to justify coercion over other people. When we agitate, we are merely trying to stop infringement upon our rights."
I have no qualms with liberty advocacy. In fact, I agree with most sentiments at the core of the freedom movement. Knowing that the movement is completely dependent on the society (ummmmm, America in this instance), that it wishes to influence, and understanding that you cannot make claims that are too objectionable to the collective in which you live, will help shift the zeitgeist back to a more liberty-minded country. Making claims which are, in fact and observation, untrue, will only stifle your original desires for more liberty.
"Nope. Truly, a trade between two parties is just that. I would purchase or trade for goods regardless of the size and scope of this awful collective you keep referring to. Trade is an agreement, rising voluntarily, between two or more parties. The fact that the "collective" has added their two cents into the equation hardly matters to me. "
More bravado that means nothing and helps no one. It matters to you that your deed has the backing of the American people, because the only way to assert your rights to your property to is in the agreed method of holding the deed. Without the deed, see how long your right to your property lasts...
There is nothing wrong with a collective agreement, even when it involves "rights", as the agreement is the only thing actually giving you those rights.
What you must strive to do is to get everybody to agree with you that individual rights ARE very imporant, for you and for them, and they will grant you the individual rights you covet.
The island statement I made comes from the quote "no man is an island", in case I confused you with my ummms and my eloquence...
""Free and voluntary" implies you have a choice to associate. Most people, by the nature of societal forces, do not. You are by defacto a member of the society in which you happen to live. The only way to remove yourself from this society, is to associate with it (thereby earning enough money to buy your dream property with the high fences). Claiming it to be otherwise is denying the reality in which you find yourself."
I believe that you are twisting the issue. I am not seeking to physically remove myself from society. I participate in society, I perform transactions with society, I befriend members of society. I am simply living my life on my property as best I see fit. I seek to remove myself from the coercive power of the collective, which is distinctly separate from actually physically removing myself from external contact. When I am on others' property, I follow the rules of those in control, for I am a guest. When I am on my property, I live my life as I desire. This is the separation I seek, to be self-governing over the path of my life, which is my right.
"Making claims which are, in fact and observation, untrue, will only stifle your original desires for more liberty."
I understand the difference of opinion which exists, but take exception to your accusation that I am making untrue statements. These are metaphysical arguments. My observations show that I live my life with plenty of liberty, and more than the collective wishes me to have. These aren't untrue statements, and I ask that you consider this.
"More bravado that means nothing and helps no one. It matters to you that your deed has the backing of the American people, because the only way to assert your rights to your property to is in the agreed method of holding the deed. Without the deed, see how long your right to your property lasts..."
LOL. What bravado? I was explaining the transactions between myself and another voluntary party! Objectively, the collective blessing of this transaction actually means very little to me. Who are you to tell me otherwise, or that this statement is full of bloated confidence?
"There is nothing wrong with a collective agreement, even when it involves "rights", as the agreement is the only thing actually giving you those rights."
The collective agreement to respect certain rights makes my life easier, certainly. If the collective decides that I am free to possess firearms on my property, then I am pleased, but it does not grant me the right.
"What you must strive to do is to get everybody to agree with you that individual rights ARE very imporant, for you and for them, and they will grant you the individual rights you covet."
And here's where we disagree. I would like the collective to choose to respect my right to Activity X, but I do not need it. There is proof everywhere of this.
"The island statement I made comes from the quote "no man is an island", in case I confused you with my ummms and my eloquence..."
I never claimed to be an island. I take part in society. I do not hole myself up anywhere. I choose to associate with certain people, and refrain from other people and certain organizations. I am confused because you immediately associate any dealings with anybody as a genuflection to the power of the collective. I do not agree with that association.
View 1 : your criticism is correct, that society can revoke your rights, this is basically the "enforcement measure" of rights (and the opposite of it)
View 2 : your criticism is WRONG, the enforcement measure is simply : BECAUSE I SAID SO (survival of the fittest)
View 3 : your view is no better. Saying you have God given rights is simply a sugar coat to make your rights sound somewhat sexier. Unless you have an enforcement measure, it's the same. So what is your enforcement and sustaining measure? It's either yourself, your community, or your government.
SO TO SUM IT UP, nobody has a better theory, they all have to answer the same question : so what if you have God given rights, government granted rights or natural rights, who do you authorize to enforce it?
I agree with view #2, that VIOLENCE AND FORCE by whomever is able and willing to do it is the enforcement measure of rights. That's how it has been, am I wrong?
You should know by now you have lost trust in most "agents" of enforcing order, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY LIKE OUR FATHERS DID. You think they cared about "Unalienable rights" of the British Crown and Indians? GROW UP, they cared about rights for themselves and only enforced it whenever their arms made it convinient.
6 of one, half a dozen of another.
You are calling the same thing by a different name.
Tom did not need to declare victory to convince us of his win. As a sorry loser, you exclaimed his victory louder then he could.
"Difference betweem a free association and a collective?
6 of one, half a dozen of another.
You are calling the same thing by a different name."
There is a world of difference between the two. Whether you agree with collectivist principles or not, you must recognize the difference between a collective body imposing coercion upon the individual against his will and that same individual trading voluntarily with other individuals. It's not a difficult or complex separation between the two.
"Tom did not need to declare victory to convince us of his win. As a sorry loser, you exclaimed his victory louder then he could."
I wasn't even debating with Tom. What are you even talking about here?
then a free association of individuals. They are the same. Any member of a collective may demure and excuse themselves from the company. All depends on the rules of the association.
You assisted in declaring Tom the winner of a debate, even if you were not participating. In attempting to deride his victory, you added yourself to the losing side as advocate.
"You assisted in declaring Tom the winner of a debate, even if you were not participating. In attempting to deride his victory, you added yourself to the losing side as advocate."
I don't know if I've even addressed this "Tom" you speak of, and I certainly never derided his "victory".
I've been discussing some things with Scott.
And why do you keep harping your 2 cents in? Are you the judge and jury here? Are there prizes? Lawdy, I hope there are prizes!