29 ms·
You’re missing the entire point and it’s important because it was completely novel at the time and still is really. It has nothing to do with the particular rig
by nemo44x 4y ago
You’re missing the entire point and it’s important because it was completely novel at the time and still is really. It has nothing to do with the particular rights that our founders believed to be natural. But the idea that they aren’t granted by a government. That government can only infringe on rights, not grant them and take them away, etc. like kings did forever or even today even in many western countries where the rights are limited.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y agoWhat differentiates "rights" from the pure freedom to do anything we are physically/mentally/emotionally capable of? That seems like government (of any size, e.g. a tribal council) introducing law into chaos. I'm not sure how one differentiates a government preventing murder and inhibiting speech with that definition.
- nemo44x 4y agoYou’re over thinking it and also missing the point. Again it’s not about the output so much as the concept. You’re making a vapid argument to try and confront a profound idea.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y agoIt's making demands of the natural world that the natural world doesn't have to obey. These natural rights are only that way because specific groups of people agree on them, making them unnatural, or, as I said previously, it implies that absolute freedom is your natural right. If that's not the case I'd ask you to explain where natural rights end and chaos begins.
- nemo44x 4y agoWhere people agree it’s self evident.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y agoSo neither innate or natural because it requires a culture to agree. We're on the same page.