@AThousandYoung saidDid I stump you? You cant list one of these natural rights?
I’m sorry you don’t like America. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidA right exists regardless of whether it's enforced or not.
Who enforces? Why don’t you give an example of a natural right?
That's why it's a right.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidHere's a neat, AI generated synopsis:
Did I stump you? You cant list one of these natural rights?
Right to Life: This is the most fundamental right, emphasizing that every individual has the right to preserve their own life. No one has the authority to take another person's life, except in self-defense.
Right to Liberty: Locke defined liberty as the freedom to act according to one's own will, as long as those actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. This concept of liberty is bounded by mutual respect for others' rights, ensuring that individual freedoms coexist within a framework of social order.
Right to Property: Locke argued that individuals have the right to own property acquired through their labor. When a person works on a piece of land or creates something, they mix their labor with it, thus making it their own. This idea laid the groundwork for modern economic systems and the protection of intellectual property.
@no1marauder saidAll those are legal rights backed up by laws.
Here's a neat, AI generated synopsis:
Right to Life: This is the most fundamental right, emphasizing that every individual has the right to preserve their own life. No one has the authority to take another person's life, except in self-defense.
Right to Liberty: Locke defined liberty as the freedom to act according to one's own will, as long as those actions do not ...[text shortened]... is idea laid the groundwork for modern economic systems and the protection of intellectual property.
@no1marauder saidNo enforcement mechanism, no right. It’s that simple.
A right exists regardless of whether it's enforced or not.
That's why it's a right.
There are only legal rights.
2 edits
@Mott-The-Hoople saidI’m not in this, scanning for humor, but don’t get Wildgrass saying teachers should not call parents in about aberrant or abnormal behavior of a child. ( page 1, I think)
Nothing concerning this subject is in the constitution. I’m not the one that claimed it was dumbass.
Setting aside him’s irrelevant ref to the constitution, could you ask his what him is talking about? Like l, would him not want to know about him’s child’s behavior being out of the ordinary?
@no1marauder saidI get the first two paras, but in para 3, can you say in plain English what this sentence would mean , say, in Kansas?
Here's a neat, AI generated synopsis:
Right to Life: This is the most fundamental right, emphasizing that every individual has the right to preserve their own life. No one has the authority to take another person's life, except in self-defense.
Right to Liberty: Locke defined liberty as the freedom to act according to one's own will, as long as those actions do not ...[text shortened]... is idea laid the groundwork for modern economic systems and the protection of intellectual property.
When a person works on a piece of land or creates something, they mix their labor with it, thus making it their own.
1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople saidAgain, the Founders and Framers disagreed with your POV.
No enforcement mechanism, no right. It’s that simple.
There are only legal rights.
People don't lack rights even if they live in a tyranny that doesn't respect them.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "
Rights first, then governments who's purpose is to make the rights secure.
@AverageJoe1 saidSure, it's a philosophical justification for individual personal property.
I get the first two paras, but in para 3, can you say in plain English what this sentence would mean , say, in Kansas?
When a person works on a piece of land or creates something, they mix their labor with it, thus making it their own.
1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople saidIn your wet dream of authoritarianism, maybe.
No enforcement mechanism, no right. It’s that simple.
There are only legal rights.
Otherwise, it's just another stupid thing to say.
@AverageJoe1 saidCould you speak English, please?
I’m not in this, scanning for humor, but don’t get Wildgrass saying teachers should not call parents in about aberrant or abnormal behavior of a child. ( page 1, I think)
Setting aside him’s irrelevant ref to the constitution, could you ask his what him is talking about? Like l, would him not want to know about him’s child’s behavior being out of the ordinary?
@no1marauder saidWe all get that a person owns his own labor, Locke 101, but how does this sentence apply to land that already belonged to someone else, or to nature itself?
Sure, it's a philosophical justification for individual personal property.
At what point does 'mixing labor' actually create ownership?
Corps own huge tracts of land that they did not personally work. How does Locke's statement apply in this case?
@AverageJoe1 saidThe logical conclusion is that there is no moral justication for such ownership though there's been about a 300 year philosophical dispute about Locke's treatment of this point.
We all get that a person owns his own labor, Locke 101, but how does this sentence apply to land that already belonged to someone else, or to nature itself?
At what point does 'mixing labor' actually create ownership?
Corps own huge tracts of land that they did not personally work. How does Locke's statement apply in this case?
1 edit
@Suzianne saidYou bit on my trap!!! Don't you see, I was mocking the use of pronouns. OF course it is jibberish to you, the reader, which is my point. Yet you yourself support the latest lib crap of speaking with pronouns, I am glad I did not do it well....don't want to apopear to be one of you fellers!!!
Could you speak English, please?
Instead of saying him, what word should I have used?!?!?