Like I mentioned in another response, saying everyone has a right to non-aggression is a cumbersome and inarticulate way of saying everyone has a right not to have their consent violated. They essentially amount to the same thing; non-aggression speaks specifically to trespasses against persons and property, correct?
The point I'm driving at is: why do you have a right to non-aggression? The reason I don't like using non-aggression, or not to have aggression initiated against you, is because it is derived from a more fundamental right. When examined, it provides the context for why that right is not, in fact, absolute, and with good reason.
you only have the rights you are conceived with. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is one way of defining three of them.
if some deprives or you of that they are violating your rights.
If you retaliate to preserve your rights you have done no wrong.
Again, why do you have those rights? Put another way, where do those rights come from? They're all derived from a more fundamental right. I agree with you that you have those three rights, but those are simply the three basic forms of a more general right, one that underscores all of them. It's the same one that underscores the right to non-aggression, which is a generalized way of referring to those three specific rights.
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.
Like I mentioned in another response, saying everyone has a right to non-aggression is a cumbersome and inarticulate way of saying everyone has a right not to have their consent violated. They essentially amount to the same thing; non-aggression speaks specifically to trespasses against persons and property, correct?
I think the term non-aggression is misleading. Rather say do not initiate aggression.
The point I'm driving at is: why do you have a right to non-aggression? The reason I don't like using non-aggression, or not to have aggression initiated against you, is because it is derived from a more fundamental right. When examined, it provides the context for why that right is not, in fact, absolute, and with good reason.
you only have the rights you are conceived with.
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is one way of defining three of them.
if some deprives or you of that they are violating your rights.
If you retaliate to preserve your rights you have done no wrong.
Again, why do you have those rights? Put another way, where do those rights come from? They're all derived from a more fundamental right. I agree with you that you have those three rights, but those are simply the three basic forms of a more general right, one that underscores all of them. It's the same one that underscores the right to non-aggression, which is a generalized way of referring to those three specific rights.
why is irrelevant.
you have them at conception.
that is sufficient.
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?