2 ms·
That is a clearly a semantic simplification. All rights are conditional, the "right to one's own work" is conditional on the "right of others work not to impede
by greycol 6y ago
That is a clearly a semantic simplification. All rights are conditional, the "right to one's own work" is conditional on the "right of others work not to impede on one's own work". From this alone you can see the contradiction and realise that rights are a compromise of different interests. From there we're just arguing about who can wield what force to enforce what rights. Perhaps it's not in my best interest not to be the sole source of force in the world but it's certainly in others.
- insert_coin 6y ago> "right of others work not to impede on one's own work" That is not a right. As I said there is only one right, or only one that matters: the right to your own thoughts, to your mind's work, that is the work I was talking about. Everything else is not a right, at least not if we are gonna be true to the word. If it's dependent on others is not a right. If it's conditional to other people's whims is not a right. If it needs the entire legal establishment and an army to enforce it is not a right. Rights in the constitution are not "rights" per se but obligations from the government to its citizens, as in you have the right* to procure it from the government, whatever it might be. If you need to ask for permission is not a right.