Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    10 Aug '10 05:30
    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.
  2. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    10 Aug '10 05:59 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    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.
    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.)
  3. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    10 Aug '10 06:14
    Violence outside of society is no different.
  4. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    10 Aug '10 06:16
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Violence outside of society is no different.
    Not sure what you mean. Where are humans outside of society?
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    10 Aug '10 06:17
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    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.)
    I think you put it very well. Then society's political mechanism tries to define, expunge, limit or (according to some citizens) institutionalize 'tyranny'.
  6. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    10 Aug '10 06:18
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Not sure what you mean. Where are humans outside of society?
    If humans are always in society then why did you bring it up?
  7. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    10 Aug '10 06:22
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    If humans are always in society then why did you bring it up?
    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.
  8. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    10 Aug '10 06:24
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    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.
    Again - if humans are always in society, why are you referring to violence "within society"? You imply there is violence outside of society.
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    10 Aug '10 06:27 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Again - if humans are always in society, why are you referring to violence "within society"? You imply there is violence outside of society.
    Isn't Sleepyguy just saying "violence is NOT acceptable to society"? The 'disapproval' circulates WITHIN society as a 'norm'.
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    10 Aug '10 06:28
    Originally posted by FMF
    Isn't Sleepyguy just saying "violence is NOT acceptable to society"? The 'disapproval' circulates in society as a 'norm'.
    I think he's saying violence is only ok when it's the government committing the violence.
  11. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    10 Aug '10 06:28
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Again - if humans are always in society, why are you referring to violence "within society"? You imply there is violence outside of society.
    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.
  12. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    10 Aug '10 06:30 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    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.
    I disagree with the "rather" part.

    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.
  13. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    10 Aug '10 06:33
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I disagree with the "rather" part.

    Natural Rights are guidelines by which we self-regulate violence, generally through society.
    OK well this is just semantics now, but I think that's an odd definition of Natural Rights.
  14. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    10 Aug '10 06:36
    This emphasis on society reminds me of whodey and his socialist conspiracy theories.
  15. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    10 Aug '10 06:41
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    This emphasis on society reminds me of whodey and his socialist conspiracy theories.
    If I'm channeling any one right now, I think it would have to be no1. Think Locke, or Cato's letters etc..