Right is the Child of Law

Rights without laws are meaningless grievances.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• rights
• natural rights
• theory of rights
• law
• Jeremy Bentham
• Martin J Willett
• human rights
• constitution
• utilitarianism
• liberalism

[EgoNamahaNemoRex]

This reminds me of my statutory interpretation professor; Martin, you have had legal training haven't you?

It certainly sounds as if you have been to law school to me.

[MartinJWillett]

@EgoNamahaNemoRex No, I have studied politics formally but the rest is self-taught.

[LibertarianRealist]

"Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law." -Ayn Rand

[MartinJWillett]

@LibertarianRealist I don't do scripture.

[EgoNamahaNemoRex]

@MartinJWillett

Well, not that you need the encouragement, but I find your argument very compelling. Many of your arguments directly refer to fundamental principles of justice and, in some cases, more subtle common law legal principles... That, or I may be reading-in said principles. Whatever the case may be, I'm unable to disagree with anything you've said...

I've argued many of these points myself; its really quite nice to hear a voice of reason echoing across the pond, very well done.

[TreachMarkets]

So in North Korea, would you say that the people have no rights, or that their rights are being violated by the government? I would say the latter.

[dawgsmycopilot]

@LibertarianRealist But whose morals? Yours, mine, an evangelical christian's? 

[TheNakedAtheist]

@smellincoffee-Rights without FORCE are merely grievances.

"Rights" that need to granted by legal edict, or force aren't rights they are privileges. So IF there is an argument to be had at all it's whether rights exist, or not, and you're arguing they don't.

[MartinJWillett]

@iamgoddard If something is shown to be true by tautology in what way has it been shown to be false? You can't decide all debates simply by classifying the argument you don't like in a way which you think gives you victory by default. If something is true by definition then it isn't thereby proven to be false, is it?

[iamgoddard]

@MartinJWillett : "Until slavery was against the law it was not against the law."

That's just a tautology, and a tautology is not an argument.

The part I'm having trouble grasping is how you jump from a meaningless tautology to the conclusion that antebellum slavery was not a violation of human rights when it was recognized by law.