8 ms·

> People have a right to buy drugs. Actually they don't, which is kind of the point.

javert 11y ago
Yes, they do, you just don't understand rights. Rights are the things that we would all agree should be legally protected if we were all rational about it. So they're a human construct, but they're still objective.
- harryh 11y ago
  And of course you are perfectly rational and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong...
- argonaut 11y ago
  Ironically, that definition of "rights" is subjective (most people would agree with you, but not all). And what you define as a "right" is also very subjective.
- eropple 11y ago
  Isn't it funny how the people who appeal to rationalism are the ones who happen to not manage it themselves? I mean, I'm not saying I'm rational, but I'm also not fronting about it. What "rational", of course, usually means, is "agreeing with me", and so there are so very many false Scotsmen in attendance.
- wvenable 11y ago
  > Yes, they do, you just don't understand rights. No, I think you're the one who doesn't seem to understand them. > Rights are the things that we would all agree should be legally protected if we were all rational about it. We, as a society, have a system in place to work out this sort of thing. That system has already decided that we don't have this right. If you were in fact able to convince enough people that your position is the most rational then your available rights can be changed. Your argument is valid but your conclusion is wrong based on the available facts.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Rights are the things that we would all agree should be legally protected if we were all rational about it. There are lots of definitions of "rational", and I don't think that explanation actually works (or even makes sense) for any of the obvious ones.
civilian 11y ago
We're discussing rights given to us by the Laws of Nature, as understood by our founding fathers, not the meager rights dolled out by the federal government.
- harryh 11y ago
  What laws of nature? The laws of nature that say if I'm bigger and stronger than you I can beat you up and take all of your stuff?
  - tanderson92 11y ago
    The poster is referring to the (often great) disparity between natural and legal rights. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
    - harryh 11y ago
      Of course he is. But I think the idea of natural rights is dumb. They're made up by humans. They're enforced by humans. Their exact nature is disagreed upon and debated by humans. The idea that there is some set of core natural rights that comes from somewhere other than humans is a tactic used to avoid debate on which rights we should and should not have by people unwilling to actually support their ideas with facts or reasoning. You might as well just say that god told us to do it that way.
      - civilian 11y ago
        Of course I am :) but natural rights have formed the basis of most modern (english revolution and forward-- american, french, russian) revolutions. Those citizens didn't care for what was _legal_ or _illegal_, they cared for their welfare and rights, even though it was essentially illegal. Webcomic for the choir: http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=469 http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=469 If humans followed the law above all else, then we would not have democracy, or even republics. We'd have totalitarian nations of smiling slaves.

Yes, they do, you just don't understand rights. Rights are the things that we would all agree should be legally protected if we were all rational about it. So they're a human construct, but they're still objective.

harryh 11y ago
And of course you are perfectly rational and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong...
argonaut 11y ago
Ironically, that definition of "rights" is subjective (most people would agree with you, but not all). And what you define as a "right" is also very subjective.
eropple 11y ago
Isn't it funny how the people who appeal to rationalism are the ones who happen to not manage it themselves? I mean, I'm not saying I'm rational, but I'm also not fronting about it. What "rational", of course, usually means, is "agreeing with me", and so there are so very many false Scotsmen in attendance.
wvenable 11y ago
> Yes, they do, you just don't understand rights. No, I think you're the one who doesn't seem to understand them. > Rights are the things that we would all agree should be legally protected if we were all rational about it. We, as a society, have a system in place to work out this sort of thing. That system has already decided that we don't have this right. If you were in fact able to convince enough people that your position is the most rational then your available rights can be changed. Your argument is valid but your conclusion is wrong based on the available facts.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Rights are the things that we would all agree should be legally protected if we were all rational about it. There are lots of definitions of "rational", and I don't think that explanation actually works (or even makes sense) for any of the obvious ones.

civilian 11y ago

We're discussing rights given to us by the Laws of Nature, as understood by our founding fathers, not the meager rights dolled out by the federal government.

harryh 11y ago
What laws of nature? The laws of nature that say if I'm bigger and stronger than you I can beat you up and take all of your stuff?
- tanderson92 11y ago
  The poster is referring to the (often great) disparity between natural and legal rights. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
  - harryh 11y ago
    Of course he is. But I think the idea of natural rights is dumb. They're made up by humans. They're enforced by humans. Their exact nature is disagreed upon and debated by humans. The idea that there is some set of core natural rights that comes from somewhere other than humans is a tactic used to avoid debate on which rights we should and should not have by people unwilling to actually support their ideas with facts or reasoning. You might as well just say that god told us to do it that way.
    - civilian 11y ago
      Of course I am :) but natural rights have formed the basis of most modern (english revolution and forward-- american, french, russian) revolutions. Those citizens didn't care for what was _legal_ or _illegal_, they cared for their welfare and rights, even though it was essentially illegal. Webcomic for the choir: http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=469 http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=469 If humans followed the law above all else, then we would not have democracy, or even republics. We'd have totalitarian nations of smiling slaves.