|
|
|
|
#3
12-22-2005, 10:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Civil War arguments
[ QUOTE ]
If rights are not synonymous with abilities, then what ARE they? You may not use a protractor to answer this question. [/ QUOTE ] A right is something a person enjoys without the coercion of others. Self-ownership is a right. Property derived from labor or homesteading is a right. Consensual, voluntary exchange is a right. These are all natural. "Man has the right to exert force if he is more powerful than another man." This is what you are saying. Logically expand from there and see where you end up. 
|
|
#4
12-22-2005, 10:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Civil War arguments
Anybody can exert force without being coerced into doing so.
So by your definition, is killing a right? If it is not, can't any act of force be declared a right because of self-defense, national security, etc?
|
|
#5
12-22-2005, 10:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Civil War arguments
[ QUOTE ]
Anybody can exert force without being coerced into doing so. So by your definition, is killing a right? If it is not, can't any act of force be declared a right because of self-defense, national security, etc? [/ QUOTE ] The acceptable use of force is in defense of one's property (life, autonomy, possesions).
|
|
#6
12-22-2005, 10:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Civil War arguments
[ QUOTE ]
The acceptable use of force is in defense of one's property (life, autonomy, possesions). [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. Now, the confederacy took the Union's property by taking its territory. How is it that the Union was not defending its property?
|
|
#7
12-23-2005, 01:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Civil War arguments
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The acceptable use of force is in defense of one's property (life, autonomy, possesions). [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. Now, the confederacy took the Union's property by taking its territory. How is it that the Union was not defending its property? [/ QUOTE ] The Union is not an individual. It has no rights. You speak of nations as if they are actors that can actually make decisions. I really hope that you concede this logic. Because if you don't, you are essentially saying that that the government has the right to confinscate everyone's land. Hey, it's their territory, everyone else is just trespassing.
|
|
#8
12-23-2005, 01:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Civil War arguments
[ QUOTE ]
If rights are not synonymous with abilities, then what ARE they? [/ QUOTE ] Rights are what you know in your heart that others would not want to be wrongly dispossessed of--just as there are some things of your own: your life, your liberty and your essential property--of which you would not want to be wrongly dispossessed by others.
|
|
#9
12-23-2005, 01:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Civil War arguments
So then, MMMMMM, if you had a really beautiful girlfriend, that I know in my heart you would not like to be dispossessed of, would I be violating your rights if she fell in love with me and we go to another country? How about if I am better qualified for your job, and you get fired and I get put in, did somebody violate a right since you lost something you did not want dipossessed?
My point is this. "Rights" are a lot like love, morals, goodness, and badness. Everybody has their own definition, and none can absolutely be considered wrong or right. What is good for you may be bad for me. What you consider a right may not be what I consider a right. They are not concrete, but are rather man-made concepts that may not actually have any real significance.
|
|
#10
12-22-2005, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Civil War arguments
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Machineguns, bomber planes, and tanks give people the right to do anything they want. [/ QUOTE ] The ability. Not the right. [/ QUOTE ] Might makes right. I thought we established that [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
