Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is how I see being free of government. If this were the case, people would be free to act on their feelings. The truth is, the evil would do ugly things. Without laws, only the lawless would live.
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk What "natural rights" does a man adrift in the middle of the ocean have that nature is obliged to observe?
"Rights" are a social construct, the privileges of the powerful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
Nature is not a social construct. The conditions are dictated by the natural world outside of what humans can control.
Since I never said that nature was a social construct, that was a strawman argument on your part.
The concept of "rights" is only manifest in a social environment. A man adrift at sea may determine in his own mind that he has "rights," but nature will not observe them.
The idea that there is a set of "rights" in the universe existing independently of a social structure that observes them is nothing but another form of supernatural mysticism.
Last edited by Ralph_Kirk; 05-10-2016 at 12:54 PM..
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk What "natural rights" does a man adrift in the middle of the ocean have that nature is obliged to observe?
"Rights" are a social construct, the privileges of the powerful.
[i]
Since I never said that nature was a social construct, that was a strawman argument on your part.
The concept of "rights" is only manifest in a social environment. A hermit may determine in his own mind that he has "rights," but nature will not observe them.
The idea that there is a set of "rights" in the universe existing independently of a social structure that observes them is nothing but another form of supernatural mysticism.
Untrue. 'Social structure' as you present it is just another form of enslavement. Darwin really WAS right. Survival of the fittest should be the only criteria for any human or animal (of any species) to be judged upon. Not pity or welfare, not 'goodwill' that makes it incumbent for someone else to pay and shoulder someone elses financial or 'social' burden.
And it was also people like Thurmond, Faubus, Maddox, and O'Connor. The people who were so against the big government were championing Jim Crow and other abuses.
If you are suggesting I am not aware that racism went well beyond Wallace, please read my comment again.
Untrue. 'Social structure' as you present it is just another form of enslavement. Darwin really WAS right. Survival of the fittest should be the only criteria for any human or animal (of any species) to be judged upon. Not pity or welfare, not 'goodwill' that makes it incumbent for someone else to pay and shoulder someone elses financial or 'social' burden.
So, then, the individual (and his gang) who gains the most physical power is the "fittest" and dictates what "rights" anyone else may have.
So, then, the individual (and his gang) who gains the most physical power is the "fittest" and dictates what "rights" anyone else may have.
Sounds pretty much the way warlords work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
