6 ms·
What you are suggesting depends entirely on the source of rights. If rights are granted by men and can be removed then you're right. If your rights are inherent
by jswinghammer 17y ago
What you are suggesting depends entirely on the source of rights. If rights are granted by men and can be removed then you're right. If your rights are inherent or granted by God then you are incorrect.
If my rights are granted by God (and included in those rights is the right to private ownership) then if someone invades my land they are violating God's law.
Private property is the basic requirement of wealth. It is defined by law to codify what existed for the protection and benefit of everyone. I'm basically quoting Aristotle here.
- hugh3 17y agoIf God has laws to protect our rights, then He really should be way more vigilant about enforcing them. Rights aren't granted by men, they're asserted by men. We have the right to free speech because we assert that we have the right to free speech, and the collective will of those who wish to assert the right to free speech is (currently, in this country, for the most part) greater than the will of those who wish to restrict it. This is why it's so important that we all agree on what rights we do have, and that we all spend a lot of time vigourously asserting them.
- rbranson 17y ago^^^ This is mostly exactly what I'm getting at, but said in a much more eloquent way. Thank you.
- jswinghammer 17y agoGod's laws would define our rights and if you believe that Hell exists then he makes sure things get sorted out in the end just fine. Without a basis for defining rights you're leaving room for those rights to be trampled on by the next popular tyrant who comes along. That's what I'm concerned about.