Universal rights require a state

Thoughts on rights.. There are too many suppositions going unquestioned by the libertarian ticket

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Right
• State
• Statism

[Barklord]

If we had an inalienable 'right' to life nobody would ever die.

[gratex]

@Barklord exactly... like your society is obliged to feed you etc, but that would infringe their right to liberty. these clowns don't realise that the only diff between themselves and statists is where they believe those boundaries should be drawn.

[MensRifleAssociation]

all power eminates from the barrel of a gun.

[gratex]

@MensRifleAssociation the pen is mightier than the sword.

[adjohnson916]

Jews in concentration camps during World War II benefited from the scraps of food they were sometimes forced to resort to for semi-sustenance. What criminals, that they did not want to pay the generous state's price for this nourishment of physical force and/or jail time!

[gratex]

@adjohnson916 godwins much? seriously are you attempting to moralise? I thought you were a moral nihilist.

how many people die from starvation worldwide every year btw? do we even count? of course if you don't cause a problem then you are not obliged to deal with it, but if you are obliged then the problem is drastically reduced by your efforts. Without a state you can wash your hands of all the suffering and misery caused by neglect and directly by malicious, exploitative fucks.

[gratex]

@gratex as long as your tax dollahs dont pay for that directly, eh? you'll still likely do business with the shareholders of exploitative businesses, of which you will be wilfully ignorant of. your hands would still be clean, though, eh?

don't moralise with me.

[Mjhavok]

I think when they say unnatural they mean sufficiently deviant from some supposed norm. It is idiosyncratic. I agree with you.

[niriop]

Universal rights are a necessary fiction, that become so when humans recognise that they need them to protect themselves from each other and from the state. Any conception of a "natural order" is always is always tied at least in part to the order of the day; the idea that by nature "kings should rule" was only popular in Feudal times and today with Feudal mindsets; this "natural property rights" bollocks only became "natural" with the rise of capitalism in the 17th century.

[EnglishGoethe]

@gratex This is an excellent video. Nice job!

[IdaMiaDot]

In my opinion our desired rights aren't derived from survival benefits, but rather emotion (especially negative emotion). The right to commit suicide is not beneficial to survival, for example.

Every right can be replaced with the right not to suffer unduly - with the exception of the right to life. Right to property, autonomy, water etc are beneficial because without them humans suffer. The rights granted to sentient organisms are just elaborations on The Right not to suffer.

[adjohnson916]

@gratex I am a moral nihilist, meaning I believe moral facts don't exist. It doesn't mean I don't have opinions about politics that I would like others to share. Anyone who understands moral nihilism in the slightest would understand that.

Death by starvation is not really a lack-of-state problem. It's mostly a lack of economic success in third world countries. In healthy markets, there are companies with a demand for labor, and have to pay labor to compete for it, so the workers can buy food.

[adjohnson916]

@robinvan1983 I am not advocating for the health care system as it existed before Obama implemented his system. There is so much federal meddling in the health care system with or without Obama's program that neither represents the kid of free market in health care that I advocate. So that's a ridiculous fallacy.

The postal service is a terrible failure. They lose money. They used to outlaw private mail companies too , then they realized how terrible they were and allowed FedEx, etc.