I'd add, the right to do anything that doesn't cause damage to one's person or property.
I'd say the rights we have could most likely be summed up in half a dozen items or less.
I never understood laws like speed limits. Simply driving fast doesn't cause damage. Drug laws: simply possessing a leaf or, powder or pill causes no damage in and of itself.
A crime that doesnt have a victim isn't a crime at all.
Most, if not all of them are control mechanisms, and revenue generators for the sociopathic ruler's benefit.
Nah I'd disagree on that. The right to do anything, no exceptions. It should just be a choice not to be a cunt, but one that is encouraged and taught. That's my opinion anyway. Nothing else can really be interpreted as liberty to me.
And now we are suffering the consequences of allowing others to determine what we should think is right, all because we're afraid of the consequences of not allowing them to. Which is worse though?
Depnds on the scenario. If somebody wanted to dive off a building I wouldn't equate that with their "right" to open up somebody else's neck with a kitchen knife. Even though in both cases somebody gets badly injured or killled.
If I want to hit myself in the head with a claw hammer until I'm knocked unconscious, fine. If I try it on somebody else, not fine.
All rights come down to property rights. I own my self, the product of that which I produce, and the moral agency of my actions.
I can produce as many molotov cocktails as I wish, I can set them off on my own property or whatever. If I start launching them at cars and my neighbors houses this is not a right. It is in fact a wrong.
I suppose it depends on how you define a right.
I'd say a right is anythjng that is not a wrong.
If anyone who has difficulty discerning what that might be.
The golden rule and/or Non Agression Principle cover a vast majority of scenarios.
I realise now we're having two different conversations lol. Obviously that is one definition of right, but in my post I refer to human rights. So a right means something that you are allowed to do in this context.
My argument is that no one should need someone else to tell them what they are allowed to do. No, it isn't right for someone to go and murder someone else. But, it's also not right to tell someone that they cannot go and murder someone else, because just as you said;
All rights come down to property rights. I own my self, the product of that which I produce, and the moral agency of my actions.
No one should be able to impose rules on another against their will. Yes, I agree we should try our best not to harm any others with our actions, but we should do it because it is right to do so, not become some one tells us it is.
I'd add, the right to do anything that doesn't cause damage to one's person or property.
I'd say the rights we have could most likely be summed up in half a dozen items or less.
I never understood laws like speed limits. Simply driving fast doesn't cause damage. Drug laws: simply possessing a leaf or, powder or pill causes no damage in and of itself.
A crime that doesnt have a victim isn't a crime at all.
Most, if not all of them are control mechanisms, and revenue generators for the sociopathic ruler's benefit.
Nah I'd disagree on that. The right to do anything, no exceptions. It should just be a choice not to be a cunt, but one that is encouraged and taught. That's my opinion anyway. Nothing else can really be interpreted as liberty to me.
The freedom to do whatever one pleases certainly exists. The ability to negate the consequences of any such action does not exist.
I'm free to take a swan dive off of a tall building. I'm not free from the consequences of sudden impact and the immutable law of gravity.
And now we are suffering the consequences of allowing others to determine what we should think is right, all because we're afraid of the consequences of not allowing them to. Which is worse though?
Depnds on the scenario. If somebody wanted to dive off a building I wouldn't equate that with their "right" to open up somebody else's neck with a kitchen knife. Even though in both cases somebody gets badly injured or killled.
If I want to hit myself in the head with a claw hammer until I'm knocked unconscious, fine. If I try it on somebody else, not fine.
All rights come down to property rights. I own my self, the product of that which I produce, and the moral agency of my actions.
I can produce as many molotov cocktails as I wish, I can set them off on my own property or whatever. If I start launching them at cars and my neighbors houses this is not a right. It is in fact a wrong.
I suppose it depends on how you define a right.
I'd say a right is anythjng that is not a wrong.
If anyone who has difficulty discerning what that might be.
The golden rule and/or Non Agression Principle cover a vast majority of scenarios.
I realise now we're having two different conversations lol. Obviously that is one definition of right, but in my post I refer to human rights. So a right means something that you are allowed to do in this context.
My argument is that no one should need someone else to tell them what they are allowed to do. No, it isn't right for someone to go and murder someone else. But, it's also not right to tell someone that they cannot go and murder someone else, because just as you said;
No one should be able to impose rules on another against their will. Yes, I agree we should try our best not to harm any others with our actions, but we should do it because it is right to do so, not become some one tells us it is.