14 Sep 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Hand of HecateAll people have the right to pursue happiness. Of course no right can violate the rights of others. For example, nobody can morally rape, because that violates the other person's right to his own body and his own liberty. We have a right to live (that is, not be murdered) and to possess property that was legally earned (with the understanding that Natural Rights are the basis of all legitimate law). We have a right to interact with other consenting adults in any way that the two desire.
Okay, for the sake of clarity, please state which rights (or even one of them) you feel are inalienable and I'll try to outline to you my concerns.
However, the owner of a particular location may have rules that must be respected in that place. In public places, the public legally decides what those are to be, and can change them as it wills. Because that area belongs to that owner, the owner can decide who may or may not access it, and thus the rules are moral.
Such rules cannot violate an individual's rights. You can't say that nobody who likes to sit in his own living room naked can use the freeway or buy ice cream.
Those who violate others' rights as determined by a court of law may have their own taken via the law. Obvious examples are denial of liberty and life via prison and execution.
14 Sep 08
Originally posted by Hand of HecateThanks, but I really didn't need the word picture for future reference.
For example, you may feel that your pursuit of freedom entitles you to wander around free and naked. I, on the other hand, may have no desire to see your dangly bits.
15 Sep 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNatural rights?!?!
All people have the right to pursue happiness. Of course no right can violate the rights of others. For example, nobody can morally rape, because that violates the other person's right to his own body and his own liberty. We have a right to live (that is, not be murdered) and to possess property that was legally earned (with the understanding that ...[text shortened]... aken via the law. Obvious examples are denial of liberty and life via prison and execution.
Oh jeez, another ius positivist vs. ius naturalist debate.
Oh what the hell, here we go:
Where can I find those natural rights written for reference, ATY? Link please!
😉
15 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87Yes people making a claim to ownership over their own lives just get in the way of the busybodies and control freaks claim to ownership over everyone-else.
Oh puhrlese don't let him get animated about his rights.
Because that's what it comes down to, the basis of natural rights, if you don't own your life - who does.
Suppose you know of somebody, when they were younger they had a few issues, they have confessed to years of youth wasted to drink, drugs and suicidal thoughts. Suppose this person then jumps onto some guvamint no-hoper-helper scheme and becomes a lifetime produceless parasitical student and in the process throws away one escape from reality crutch - drugs, only to pick up another - god bothering. Suppose this person suddenly has a rush of gall to the brain and feels his/her resume has now qualified them with a superior world view and superior ideas on how you should run your life and they're prepared to enlist the services of guvamint thugs to enforce their view.
Are you ready to hand over the reins Sietse?
15 Sep 08
Originally posted by WajomaYour state does. Saying you have a natural right to it is as altruistic and utopian as any other delusional world system that purports to offer a perfect solution for all citizens who live in it. You are owned by the herd. The state, in having the power to suspend habeas corpus means that the control you imagine you have over your person is not as fundamental and absolute as you would like to think it to be.
if you don't own your life - who does.
Throughout history the examples of Government press ganging its citizens into various armies to fight and sacrifice all for the nation, suggests that self ownership is a very tenuous state that can be suspended at almost any time given the presence of a particular state of emergency.
So do you own yourself? Only in as far as you are willing to comply to all the civil codes and laws and are wiling to respect the power, property and privilege that the state invests in itself.
Suggesting that you have absolute right to express ownership of your own life is ludicrous when you consider that it is even illegal in most countries to commit suicide! If it were not for the fact that the herd considers it its right to hold you responsible for all the benefits you have derived from it(the herd) in terms of the free ride you were given to access the wealth and profit from the knowledge provided by those who have gone before you, then you may have been able to claim that right of self ownership, but unfortunately even though its not explicitly stated the herd wants its pound of flesh for every advantage you have gained by your association with it. Get over yourself. Individuals have rights, but groups have rights as well, and in a battle of rights between the individual and the group, the group always eventually wins.
So who owns you?
15 Sep 08
Originally posted by WajomaHas he a choise?
Yes people making a claim to ownership over their own lives just get in the way of the busybodies and control freaks claim to ownership over everyone-else.
Because that's what it comes down to, the basis of natural rights, if you don't own your life - who does.
Suppose you know of somebody, when they were younger they had a few issues, they have confess ...[text shortened]... ces of guvamint thugs to enforce their view.
Are you ready to hand over the reins Sietse?
But then agian who knows who pulls who. I am maybe pulling his/her leg with out that person knows it.
Think of this insteed How much you are leting some use your rains, to pull you in the direction they want to...
1o1 Psychology. ohh yea dont you forget the duffle bag either. Or give it a way to your shadow.
_____________________________________________________________
Life is what you put into it...
Show some common sence.
15 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaThe difference between an average society and a great one is the recognition that you cant put a value on anyone's life and as such no one owns life at all. Regardless of what you might belief of its origins, the fragile state of being we call life, when it is recognised for the unaffordable gift it is makes one recognise that there are things in life worth fighting for and upholding, other than just a petty sense of childish ownership.
Suppose you know of somebody, when they were younger they had a few issues, they have confessed to years of youth wasted to drink, drugs and suicidal thoughts. Suppose this person then jumps onto some guvamint no-hoper-helper scheme and becomes a lifetime produceless parasitical student and in the process throws away one escape from reality crutch - drugs, only to pick up another - god bothering.
For that reason some societies have found it important to code into their governance the notion of a fair go for all, and with this ethos goes the notion that all of society benefits when the focus of citizenship is placed beyond mere selfish goals. Society functions as an organism and its overall health is as good as the health of its constituent parts. To suggest otherwise is to simply cut one's nose to spite one's face.
15 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeyRape is about power, not about sex.
So the argument is, "Sure prostitution kinda seedy and all but hey, it beats people raping and killing for sex isn't it?"
Put another way, "I would not want my mother or daughter doing it but hey, at least someone out their is willing to do it to keep society safer for us all?"
Ain't it great that people are willing to throw their lives away so that we can all feel safer walking the streets?
Nice!!
Killing is not about sex (in most cases) either.
However, men want to shag and various women want to make money from that. It's been like that since... oh... way before you were born.
Prostitution is only seedy if it's illegal. Otherwise, like here in Holland, you have Health and Safety, Unions, etc.
Yes, there is a seedy side to prostitution, but that's only the illegal side (trading in women and children, to name one). Legalising or illegalising prostitution doesn't influence these matters. That's a whole other ball game for a whole other thread (and then you're into macro-economics).
15 Sep 08
I'm for legalized prostitution, always have been. I think it's ridiculous that we have it here in the US in two states but none elsewhere. Women and men exchange sex for all sorts of reasons that suit them - why not cash exchanges that are agreed upon like in brothels with managment, STD testing and control measures?
This is way off topic but something I have thought about as a female: we have the right to an abortion in my country but we cannot sell our bodies for money?
I'm disturbed by street prostitution because of the obvious drug motivation and victimization they suffer but I think that's completely separate.
As long as the business of prostitution is standardized fairly - as you see in brothels where women are content doing what they please - I see no harm. If a woman gets into the business and is really not mentally capable, that's too bad but regrettable sex can be had without the cash deal for anyone. Not everybody has sex because they are emotionally connected or in love and that's an adult choice in my view.