You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Rights- reciprocal or absolute?
Alright, but why? That's the problem with presupposing non-aggression as a right. You're not incorrect, but without understanding the reason behind it, you're vulnerable to coming to incorrect conclusions.
By definition. Why does water (generally, adjusting for purity and air pressure, etc.) freeze at 32 degrees F/0 degrees C? That's just how it is. You can argue and question, but that's not going to change it.
Incorrect. It can be justified and reasoned logically. It derives from an a priori truth, so in that sense you're partially correct, but non-aggression itself isn't a priori true. That's the point I'm getting at. It arises from a more fundamental right, which, when properly understood, reveals that this right, from which the right to non-aggression arises, is reciprocal. This is the why that justifies self-defense.
"non-aggression itself isn't a priori true"
Meaningless. "Non-aggression" (and Zero Archation) is the best way to attempt to live among others so far discovered. That doesn't mean it is "true", or that it isn't based on something more basic. The alternatives have been tried, and anyone who bothers to observe can see where they lead. The results are true. The principles are true, as far as they work and the alternatives lead to ruin for our species.
You can behave as though rights (not specifically "non-aggression") are reciprocal, but that is still treating rights as though they are privileges, granted or withdrawn on a whim by someone who believes they have that "authority". I still recognize that murderers have rights, even though their rights don't negate their debts.