You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Rights- reciprocal or absolute?
Why is never irrelevant, but you're missing my point. I'm not claiming you don't have them at conception. The point I'm making is that they are specific instances of a more general right: the right to not have your consent violated. This is crucial in understanding why rights are reciprocal vis-a-vis the person who's rights are violated.
ok...have it your way...
nice weather we're having?
Why shy away from the conversation? I'm presenting you with a solid argument in favor of both self-defense and fundamental rights which is completely unbeatable. Again, I agree with you about the fact every individual has rights and that those rights are conferred upon an individual from conception.
All rights derive from the consent principle. It underpins every other valid right. As such, violating it estops one from appealing to it when the victim defends him or herself. In this way, rights are reciprocal. They're not reciprocal in that violating them negates those rights for the victim. They're reciprocal in that violating them negates those rights for the violator. That's the nice part about negative rights: when someone violates them, that opens them up for the use of force in self-defense. This is only the case if they are reciprocal.