Debates
10 Aug 10
10 Aug 10
It seems to me that what Natural Rights really are are hardwired guidelines by which we self-regulate violence.
That is, violence is ok if and only if peoples' rights are violated.
Because of this, it makes me very angry to see generally hawkish people make light of rights violations. They are nothing to joke about.
10 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI would put that a bit differently.
It seems to me that what Natural Rights really are are hardwired guidelines by which we self-regulate violence.
That is, violence is ok if and only if peoples' rights are violated.
Because of this, it makes me very angry to see generally hawkish people make light of rights violations. They are nothing to joke about.
Societies are the means by which we attempt to secure our Natural Rights, and within a society, violence is NOT acceptable unless it is carried out by the state, in accordance to law, for the purpose of securing Natural Rights.
(That is, unless the state becomes tyrannical itself, which is a game changer. Or unless a citizen is acting in self defense, obviously.)
10 Aug 10
Originally posted by SleepyguyI think you put it very well. Then society's political mechanism tries to define, expunge, limit or (according to some citizens) institutionalize 'tyranny'.
I would put that a bit differently.
Societies are the means by which we attempt to secure our Natural Rights, and within a society, violence is NOT acceptable unless it is carried out by the state, in accordance to law, for the purpose of securing Natural Rights.
(That is, unless the state becomes tyrannical itself, which is a game changer. Or unless a citizen is acting in self defense, obviously.)
10 Aug 10
Originally posted by SleepyguyAgain - if humans are always in society, why are you referring to violence "within society"? You imply there is violence outside of society.
Sorry ATY. I'm obviously not following you. You started the thread, and I engaged because your definition seemed to me to be, in part, a justification of violence within a society.
10 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIsn't Sleepyguy just saying "violence is NOT acceptable to society"? The 'disapproval' circulates WITHIN society as a 'norm'.
Again - if humans are always in society, why are you referring to violence "within society"? You imply there is violence outside of society.
10 Aug 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAh. I see. You said Natural Rights really are guidelines by which we self-regulate violence.
Again - if humans are always in society, why are you referring to violence "within society"? You imply there is violence outside of society.
I'm saying, rather, that societies are what we use to regulate violence.
10 Aug 10
2 edits
Originally posted by SleepyguyI disagree with the "rather" part.
Ah. I see. You said Natural Rights really are guidelines by which we self-regulate violence.
I'm saying, rather, that societies are what we use to regulate violence.
Natural Rights are guidelines by which we self-regulate violence through society.
Since we're always in society though I'm not sure what we're adding to the discussion by emphasizing it. You obviously mean some abstraction of society, not the government.