Tom Woods - Where Do Rights Come From? Pt. 1

[JasperXoR]

Forward to 4:50 to skip introduction

[TomWoodsTV]

@fergus247 Did you listen to the lecture?

[Mike10four]

@TomWoodsTV Morality and civil law, aka Natural Law, is the thread that runs through the tapestry of civil society; on the other hand, the Laws of Nature trumps the powers of mortals in government. All life is dependent on the Laws of Nature which includes Jefferson’s Rights. Therefore, these Rights were here before humans! Many confuse these Rights are part of Natural Law, giving the illusion these Rights are man made and therefore, can be manipulated. My channel contains the “argumentation.”

[ProIndividual]

@Mike10four I have to disagree somewhat, although I agree people try and ammend the Natural Law, manipulating it. I would say pre-human, and even parts of our evolution, there was only egoist law; "might makes right". Then, as we gained more intellect, we developed a moral code, ethics, and therefore made the Natural Law, "do no harm". Only humans are good or evil, because only humans choose; animals act on instinct. Egoism is what rigns in the absence of man, Natural Law with man present.

[Mike10four]

@ProIndividual Man can define any metaphysical aspect to the perception of manmade laws. However, man is subservient to the Laws of Nature; the Laws governing our Cosmos responsible for the creation of Life. Once alive, Life has the Freedom in the pursuit of Survival; otherwise, you’re dead. Jefferson’s polished version of this phenomenon is: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” see my channel video for the proof.

[ProIndividual]

@Mike10four I'm not a utilitarian...so I'm not going to agree. Survival is NOT always the chief drive, as evidenced when people give their lives for greater causes. Egoism is relevant, sure...but it isn't a moral code at all. Essentially, egoism argues we have the inherent "right" to kill another, but we do not. Also, egoism of the collective never overrules the individual. I prefer Josiah Warren, Henry David Throeau, and Lysnader Spooner on this subject to Jefferson. He was paraphrasing Locke.

[Mike10four]

@ProIndividual Survival transcends the “greater causes.” Without survival there are no “greater causes.” To have a greater cause you must first survive; on the other hand, “greater” is a relative term in one’s reality. “Egoism” is a personal matter. As for “kill another,” have you read the news lately? Jefferson’s “paraphrasing” is what many others do, stand on the shoulders’ of giants; in other words: social and scientific evolution. Jefferson’s contribution was implementation.

[ProIndividual]

@Mike10four reigns*

[europa]

what it is an opening statement that each of us individuals not be owned by others but to compromise,negotiate a path to mutual existence,allocation of resources. hence the most reasonable and ethical way is Austrian economics/constitutional republic

[europa]

God=creator=energy=building blocks of life

Whether your an atheist or Religous, the brand name is suggested in these terms

".....the person/place/or thing that started this whole show, gave you have the right to exist independent of others..."

the human experience, not your mother or father or some cute scientific/or religous way of spinning it,

[MooseOfReason]

Lol, "They'll cut all this out."

Apparently Tom wasn't in on the cutting room floor.

[grumpone]

Yawn, what a bore...

[starsassy]

google - non aggression axiom

[PlaceOfOrigin]

Ayn Rand is a great place to start.

[grumpone]

You know you really are an ignorant ass and actually a very bad example of an atheist, as you don't even comprehend basic things. You don't listen, you constantly purposely misunderstand and then when you are shown to be wrong, you simply change the meaning of words. Congratulations. No wonder no one wants to go back and forth with you. People like you are actually dangerous to the atheist couse. You'd do well to calm yourself down and stop manipulating for others to take you seriously.

[grumpone]

Reality does not change based on different opinions, reality is always the same and some opinions of it are correct and some are incorrect. Calling both opinions correct is indeed relativism at its worse. And that is who you are. Sky being blue does not change if someone says that the sky is pokadot colour.

[grumpone]

Just because someone thinks that let's say that murder is moral, doesn't mean that morals are subjective. It just means that there are different opinions on morals and one opinion is right and the other is wrong.

[grumpone]

So if in your culture murdering was deemed moral you'd murder without a second of thought, right?

"A rational person sees that your assertions are baseless". No, not a rational person, a moronic imbecile like you.

You are either a complete ignoramus or really believe in your own bullshit. You are too dumb for my responses, really. You also might want to check yourself for some mental problems as they are evident to any rational, thinking person.

[PersianPaladin]

I don't like Von Mises though. I call him Von Miser.

[PersianPaladin]

With rights, come responsibilities. Our rights come from God, and not from government or corporations.

[grumpone]

What's wrong with you you pompous idiot? To hard for you to understand that murder, rape, torture, slavery, etc. are morally abhorrent, not to mention illegal. Common sense gives you guidance of what is universally moral and what is not. For you to even ask such moronic questions must mean that you think everything is relative, based on your interpretation of things. You know my little man, reality exists no matter what your interpretation of it is.

[grumpone]

Yes indeed. We can have unlimited right, but if no one claims them, fights for them and defends them then in reality there are no rights.

[grumpone]

Moral values of not to lie, steal, cheat and murder are objective and universal. Of course the fact that different cultures recognise different moral values does not mean that all different values are indeed moral - objectively moral - i.e. in some cultures stoning for "sins" is still practised and at hte same time they teach not to kill. So to any rational person the objective ones are easy to differentiate from indoctrinated or non-values.

[fritziematt]

That argument can be turned around where you would have to demonstrate that ethics are subjective.

[tewj57]

Not true. Anselm's definition of God as the greatest conceivable being does not rely on the existence of such a being (even if he later claims that such existence is implied in the definition). Even an atheist can accept this as a working definition of God; the atheist would merely claim that such a being does not exist in reality.

[tyrantslayer999]

God Bless Tom Woods!

[lazerus9]

Rights are never granted..they are either usurped or defended!