Libertarian Discussion Forum | Political Discussion Forums

web analytics

Advertise on SI

web analytics

Politics | Libertarian Discussion Forum

Previous 10 | Next 10

To: SocratesJohnson who wrote (8797)	4/29/2012 12:36:11 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	1 Recommendation of 9239

I did. Aristotle.....Next question? You misunderstood Aristotle's position. He didn't say that owning slaves was a natural right. He said that some people are naturally slaves and some people are naturally masters. There was nothing about "rights" in his statements about slavery. I have provided irrefutable evidence that I have a brain.......If you can't comprehend that unbelievably obvious fact you really shouldn't attempt any sort of discussion do to a shocking inability to comprehend simple reasoning. 25 years ago I worked on an expert system based product that could give responses to typed or verbal questions that mimicked human responses. And artificial intelligence has come a long way in 25 years. Where it is highly unlikely that you are an AI machine, the fact that we are seeing text responses to our messages is not proof that there is a human body at the other end of the conversation. You have provided evidence, but it is not irrefutable. That is true but in many cases absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence. yes, in many cases, not all

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (8813)	4/29/2012 1:26:50 PM
From: SocratesJohnson	of 9239

He didn't say that owning slaves was a natural right. He said that it's the natural order which, according to you, means that it's a natural right. Some of our founders assumed that property rights were natural rights and that slaves were property......They therefore thought that owning slaves was a natural right. 5 years ago I worked on an expert system based product that could give responses to typed or verbal questions that mimicked human responses. No computer would provide the sort of responses that I've gone in for. You worked with computers so you should know that. You have provided evidence, but it is not irrefutable. Actually it is irrefutable. If you can show that computers respond the way I do I'll retract that statement......Until then my assertion stands. yes, in many cases, not all I think I had specified that. I think I had said that "in many cases" absence of of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence. If you don't have that as a working assumption you quickly get into trouble. How do you know that there isn't a natural right to own slaves?...........You don't really but there is no reason to think that such a right exists and a lot of reasons to think that it doesn't.

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read

To: SocratesJohnson who wrote (8798)	4/29/2012 1:29:36 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	2 Recommendations of 9239

Do you have any idea of how weak an "argument" that is? How can you "think" you are making any sense? If we (humans) define the term "natural right" as fundamental rights that are derived from the state of being human, then we have done exactly what I said. That is, we have used the term "natural right" to represent the idea that fundamental human behavior is something that the legal system cannot take away. We could have described this as "belgium", but we used the term "natural right" instead. Your original argument was that governments give rights The libertarian argument is that rights exist and governments either protect those rights or take them away. It's all in the definition of "rights". If the definition of "rights" is "that which is due to anyone by legal guarantees" then you come up with SocratesJohnsontopia If the definition of "rights' is "that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees or moral principles", then the door is open to things other than legal guarantees. In other words, if the definition of "rights" includes something other than "legal guarantees", then "natural rights" exist because we say they do. I'll wait while you go get your dictionary.

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (8816)	4/29/2012 1:45:25 PM
From: SocratesJohnson	of 9239

Natural rights exist because because we say they exist. That's patent nonsense. Based on that "reasoning" those who said that they had a natural right to own slaves were right. That is, we have used the term "natural right" to represent the idea that fundamental human behavior is something that the legal system cannot take away. Pooping if fundamental human behavior but we don't have a right to poop wherever we please. (Dogs have the freedom to do so but not the "right". Rights involve duty. In order to declare one has a right to something others must acknowledge a duty to honor that right. Here's part of where your confusion lies: I have the freedom to pee in my wooded backyard. I have the freedom because there isn't a soul on this earth who can tell me not to as there isn't a soul on this earth who knows that, at any given time, I'm doing it. I don't have a right to pee in my yard though. If I was to stand in full view of the road when people were around I wouldn't have the freedom to pee. I can't stand out in front of my yard and declare that I have a right to pee and I most certainly wouldn't have the right to do so even though it's fundamental human behavior. Having the freedom to do something is significantly different than having the right to do it although there is some overlap. In order for someone to have a right someone else has a duty to respect that right.

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (2)

To: SocratesJohnson who wrote (8817)	4/29/2012 5:48:51 PM
From: alanrs	of 9239

You could be the smartest guy on the planet, ever, and even prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are no 'natural rights' (or 'Belgium, I liked that one). And then what? My bet is that you act AS IF there were natural rights in your own personal life, my bet is you get mad when someone steals your candy or cuts you off in traffic. My bet is that no matter what kind of logical straight jacket you construct you will not be able to act in agreement with it. My bet is that your decision making process, where you live, what you eat, who you know, what you studied in school, all reflect some passing familiarity with 'natural rights'. I'm guessing. ARS

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

Previous 10 | Next 10

Copyright/IP Policy

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.