3 ms·

> I own my body, and I have the right to defend it (me) from harm. That's not a "right". That's just an "action". Rights are protected by a legal structure.

> I own my body, and I have the right to defend it (me) from harm. That's not a "right". That's just an "action". Rights are protected by a legal structure. There are no 'rights' without a higher-power legal structure to provide it. Anyone can say they have any 'right' - defense, speech, a Plasma TV in the bathroom, etc.. doesn't mean you're given that 'right' without a higher power granting and enforcing that right.

mindcrime 11y ago
That's not a "right". That's just an "action". Rights are protected by a legal structure. There are no 'rights' without a higher-power legal structure to provide it. We are working with very different definitions of what a "right" is. A "right" in my book is "something you don't need anyone else's permission to do". So, defending myself, obviously is a right. Walking into your home, opening your refrigerator and taking a swig from the milk jug, is not a right I have. Sounds like we basically come down on the different sides of the argument about "negative right" vs "positive rights". I don't believe in "positive rights", so the idea of "the right to a Plasma TV in the bathroom" is basically nonsense to me. All it means to me is, "of course you have the right to buy a Plasma TV and put it in your bathroom, if you want to and can afford it".
- mozumder 11y ago
  I don't need permission to install a plasma TV in my bathroom either. Does that mean it's a right? I don't get it. And how do you resolve your 'don't need permission' with the fact that powers bigger than you can do what they wish with you. Do you have the right to defend yourself if government is trying to arrest you? You basically redefined 'action' again. You don't need permission to do any action... you just do it.
  - mindcrime 11y ago
    I don't need permission to install a plasma TV in my bathroom either. Does that mean it's a right? I don't get it. I can't tell if you're just trying to be provocative, or if you genuinely don't get the distinction here, but I'll err on the side of good faith. What I'm saying is that most of the time, when people talk about things like "the right to have a Plasma TV" what they are saying is that they are entitled to a Plasma TV and that someone else (can|must|should) be compelled to provide them said TV. That would be a "positive right" and I disagree that such rights exist. However, of course you have "the right to purchase a Plasma TV and install it in your bedroom". Because you don't need anyone's permission to do so. Do you have the right to defend yourself if government is trying to arrest you? Of course you do. The government may not recognize said right, and since they may employ more men with guns than you do, they may be able to compel you to go along with their dictates through force, but that doesn't mean it's right. At the end of the day, there's probably no way to ever totally escape "might makes right" since a person (or persons) with sufficient power can over-power those who disagree with them. As far as I'm concerned though, that's a meaningless tautology. The issue that concerns me is to what extent we institutionalize the use of force, particularly in any offensive mode.

mindcrime 11y ago

That's not a "right". That's just an "action". Rights are protected by a legal structure. There are no 'rights' without a higher-power legal structure to provide it. We are working with very different definitions of what a "right" is. A "right" in my book is "something you don't need anyone else's permission to do". So, defending myself, obviously is a right. Walking into your home, opening your refrigerator and taking a swig from the milk jug, is not a right I have. Sounds like we basically come down on the different sides of the argument about "negative right" vs "positive rights". I don't believe in "positive rights", so the idea of "the right to a Plasma TV in the bathroom" is basically nonsense to me. All it means to me is, "of course you have the right to buy a Plasma TV and put it in your bathroom, if you want to and can afford it".

mozumder 11y ago
I don't need permission to install a plasma TV in my bathroom either. Does that mean it's a right? I don't get it. And how do you resolve your 'don't need permission' with the fact that powers bigger than you can do what they wish with you. Do you have the right to defend yourself if government is trying to arrest you? You basically redefined 'action' again. You don't need permission to do any action... you just do it.
- mindcrime 11y ago
  I don't need permission to install a plasma TV in my bathroom either. Does that mean it's a right? I don't get it. I can't tell if you're just trying to be provocative, or if you genuinely don't get the distinction here, but I'll err on the side of good faith. What I'm saying is that most of the time, when people talk about things like "the right to have a Plasma TV" what they are saying is that they are entitled to a Plasma TV and that someone else (can|must|should) be compelled to provide them said TV. That would be a "positive right" and I disagree that such rights exist. However, of course you have "the right to purchase a Plasma TV and install it in your bedroom". Because you don't need anyone's permission to do so. Do you have the right to defend yourself if government is trying to arrest you? Of course you do. The government may not recognize said right, and since they may employ more men with guns than you do, they may be able to compel you to go along with their dictates through force, but that doesn't mean it's right. At the end of the day, there's probably no way to ever totally escape "might makes right" since a person (or persons) with sufficient power can over-power those who disagree with them. As far as I'm concerned though, that's a meaningless tautology. The issue that concerns me is to what extent we institutionalize the use of force, particularly in any offensive mode.