"Rights don't come from government": You're not actualky making a point

[Samson_Corwell]

@WuWei

Polity-Merriam-Webster

Webster concurs with Wikipedia.

[WuWei]

It has everything to do with it

[SixFoot]

@Samson_Corwell

@SixFoot

@WuWei

Interesting. I shall ponder it.

To use your example of welfare; welfare is the fruits of others’ labor. Somebody has to pay for it.

To me, the question then becomes, “Do I have the right to the fruits of others’ labor?”

Of course not.

Then I can’t have a right to welfare.

There is your “natural.”

Many people don’t know what a right is. They feel their wants become rights if they really want it.

Rights aren’t created by government. They are protections from government.

Remember the “Freedom - Urban vs Rural” thread on the old boards when we all first realized that city-dwelling libs honestly think the liberty of being able to walk downstairs to a vending machine is the same thing as a right??

None of them were even allowed to pee naked off their front porch.

It’s adorable that you think this has any bearing on the topic.

Not as adorable as you taking offense to a conversation that had nothing to do with your forgettable self.

[SixFoot]

@WuWei

Yes, I started that thread. Some of the responses were astounding.

They even argued that peeing naked off your porch wasn’t a right!

[Samson_Corwell]

@WuWei

It has everything to do with it

Not really. That’s a debate about amenities versus rights—and I’d be on your side in that devate. But, this thread was started solely on the point that “natural rights” isn’t a distinguisher in sorting political views because all political views say that things should be such-and-such a way regardless of what current laws, customs, or codes say.

[Samson_Corwell]

@SixFoot

@WuWei

Yes, I started that thread. Some of the responses were astounding.

They even argued that peeing naked off your porch wasn’t a right!

The case that that isn’t a right—or shouldn’t be a right, depending on a person’s preferred phrasing—is intuitively plausible at the very least.

[Samson_Corwell]

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

Any “right to welfare” can be rephrased as a negative right.

Ok, let’s see it.

Yes, protection of rights can be manipulated. And?

“Right to water” is just “that water over there actually belongs to this other person instead of the person you think it belongs to”.

“Right to welfare” is just “this money that you think belongs to this person over here actually belongs to that other person over there”.

[Samm]

@Samson_Corwell

@Samm

@Samson_Corwell

@Samm

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

Yes.
…

I was talking about the difference between law and government.

There is no difference.

Then all rights are governmental.

You could not be more wrong.

If you pay attention, Samm, I was making a reductio ad absurdum, NOT making an actual claim.

What’s the difference? Your implication was clear regardless of your intent … and very wrong.

Laws come only from government. The law and the government are the same. But government does not bestow rights, it only restricts or protects rights.

Anyone can argue that their preferred set of rights don’t come from government and can only be denied/protected by it, so that doesn’t give us a way to distinguish political views.

Rights inextricably have a legal component. Hence why the topic belongs to the field of jurisprudence and why rights talk is always bogged down in legal talk.

And, no, law and government are not the same. If it were true, then you could argue that everything is determined by government (e.g., you could say that the parent-child relationship’s form is a creature of government).

BTW, you’re missing ANOTHER point, which is that it doesn’t if rights “come from” government or not, because NO ONE really believes that ANY old set of rights will do. There’s effectually 0 difference between saying “X is a right” and “X should be a right”.

It’s not that complicated. Government restricts rights and/or preserves rights, they do not grant rights. Period.

[Samm]

@Samson_Corwell

@Samm

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

One thing to keep in mind, the Constitution addresses government.

The Constitution does not restrict government.

The Constitution restricts the content of law.

"The Congress shall make no law … " That’s pretty ■■■■■■■ clear.

Your confusion is conceptual.

Not at all. The Constitution is very clear.

[Samson_Corwell]

@Samm

@Samson_Corwell

@Samm

@Samson_Corwell

@Samm

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

Yes.
…

I was talking about the difference between law and government.

There is no difference.

Then all rights are governmental.

You could not be more wrong.

If you pay attention, Samm, I was making a reductio ad absurdum, NOT making an actual claim.

What’s the difference? Your implication was clear regardless of your intent … and very wrong.

Laws come only from government. The law and the government are the same. But government does not bestow rights, it only restricts or protects rights.

Anyone can argue that their preferred set of rights don’t come from government and can only be denied/protected by it, so that doesn’t give us a way to distinguish political views.

Rights inextricably have a legal component. Hence why the topic belongs to the field of jurisprudence and why rights talk is always bogged down in legal talk.

And, no, law and government are not the same. If it were true, then you could argue that everything is determined by government (e.g., you could say that the parent-child relationship’s form is a creature of government).

BTW, you’re missing ANOTHER point, which is that it doesn’t if rights “come from” government or not, because NO ONE really believes that ANY old set of rights will do. There’s effectually 0 difference between saying “X is a right” and “X should be a right”.

It’s not that complicated. Government restricts rights and/or preserves rights, they do not grant rights. Period.

And all of that irrelevant to my point, which you fail to grasp.

Here is the point: that is compatible with EVERY political philosophy. Communists can simultaneously agree rights aren’t grant and claim that property isn’t a right, Nazis can simultaneously agree that rights aren’t granted and claim that Jews do not have the right to life, etc.

Someone in favor of UHC can say “I totally agree that rights do not come from government. That is why I government has a moral duty to recognize the right to healthcare, because rights are independent of government fiat.”.

I explained this on Twitter of all places and this guy was able to get it (my text is bolded):

[Samson_Corwell]

@Samm

@Samson_Corwell

@Samm

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

One thing to keep in mind, the Constitution addresses government.

The Constitution does not restrict government.

The Constitution restricts the content of law.

"The Congress shall make no law … " That’s pretty ■■■■■■■ clear.

Your confusion is conceptual.

Not at all. The Constitution is very clear.

Writing words on paper doesn’t change reality.

[SixFoot]

@Samson_Corwell

@SixFoot

@WuWei

Yes, I started that thread. Some of the responses were astounding.

They even argued that peeing naked off your porch wasn’t a right!

The case that that isn’t a right—or shouldn’t be a right, depending on a person’s preferred phrasing—is intuitively plausible at the very least.

You probably have a hard time understanding actual rights because of how domesticated and trained you are from being raised in an urban kennel.

[Samson_Corwell]

@SixFoot

@Samson_Corwell

@SixFoot

@WuWei

Yes, I started that thread. Some of the responses were astounding.

They even argued that peeing naked off your porch wasn’t a right!

The case that that isn’t a right—or shouldn’t be a right, depending on a person’s preferred phrasing—is intuitively plausible at the very least.

You probably have a hard time understanding actual rights because of how domesticated and trained you are from being raised in an urban kennel.

If you’re going to be disingenuous, then kindly GTFOH. Or, if honesty is not your problem, then work on your reading comprehension.

When I say that the case for indecent exposure laws is plausible, I am NOT saying that it is definitive. But, I’d suggest exposing yourself naked to others should not be a right anymore than masturbating in public like a druggie should be.

[SixFoot]

@Samson_Corwell

@SixFoot

@Samson_Corwell

@SixFoot

@WuWei

Yes, I started that thread. Some of the responses were astounding.

They even argued that peeing naked off your porch wasn’t a right!

The case that that isn’t a right—or shouldn’t be a right, depending on a person’s preferred phrasing—is intuitively plausible at the very least.

You probably have a hard time understanding actual rights because of how domesticated and trained you are from being raised in an urban kennel.

If you’re going to be disingenuous, then kindly piss off. Or, if honesty is not your problem, then work on your reading comprehension.

When I say that the case for indecent exposure laws is plausible, I am NOT saying that it is definitive. But, I’d suggest exposing yourself naked to others should not be a right anymore than masturbating in public like a druggie should be.

You’re the one seeking replies from me. If you don’t like the truth, then kindly grow the ■■■■ up already. You’re a middle-aged male for crying out loud.

But anyway, the mental visions you’re projecting over something so innocent is a confirmation of your domesticated life (and lack of ownership). It’s no wonder you’re confused about rights.

[komobu]

@tnt

Don’t kill people that aren’t bothering you.

Then if they are bothering you, it’s ok? You might want to re-think your vision of “Rights”

[Samson_Corwell]

@komobu

Then if they are bothering you, it’s ok?

If they are streamers, then yes.

[Samson_Corwell]

@WuWei

The Constitution that formed the government. Then the Constitution with the Bill of Rights, which…

…which made clarifications. Not that profound a change.

[Samson_Corwell]

@WuWei

Yes, I started that thread. Some of the responses were astounding.

Was that before my time here?

[Samm]

@Samson_Corwell

And all of that irrelevant to my point, which you fail to grasp.

And IMO, your point is irrelevant. We live under the Constitution and it is very clear on this issue.

[Samm]

@Samson_Corwell

@Samm

@Samson_Corwell

@Samm

@Samson_Corwell

@WuWei

One thing to keep in mind, the Constitution addresses government.

The Constitution does not restrict government.

The Constitution restricts the content of law.

"The Congress shall make no law … " That’s pretty ■■■■■■■ clear.

Your confusion is conceptual.

Not at all. The Constitution is very clear.

Writing words on paper doesn’t change reality.

Of course it does. For you and me, the Constitution is our reality.