You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Flowlosophy (original poetry)
If you honestly believe laws give rights and not restrict them then we aren't going to ever reach a middle ground of understanding.
If you honestly believe laws give rights and not restrict them then we aren't going to ever reach a middle ground of understanding.
Are you trolling now, could you elaborate, and why exactly would we need to aggree over something, just to feel satisfied we didn't have to talk about it ? It's a debate. You ignited it with the poem, defend your position. :) The UN 1966 Rights Covenant on Civil and Political Rights created laws through rights and vice-versa - that never exsisted in the countries applying, because they needed to ratify them first as rights then as laws for to be accepted as the UN members. This is the example of how law-rights generator carries the balance of justice and interactions between citizens/people/humans or companies/industries/countries. If you want lawless country or society, there are plenty around the world. I didn't learn this stuff from books coming from those places, though I wish it will change someday. Have you ever watched the english parliament debates and speaches? There cannot be middle ground between too many people on matters that are threatening to destabilize international law, and through it - the common sense to which international population is adapting quickly and starting to go beyond the previously limited trading, ideas, ideals... I don't believe that laws give us rights. I know that rights gave us laws and vice-versa sometimes. Restriction you are mentioning, well, the posibillity of the endlessnes of violation the particular law would lead to chaos. Also - laws are the restrictions, but every law must state exactly to which extent those restrictions go and what for example is self-defence violation. yunking, again.
My thoughts are that without any of the governments or powers in play restricting rights, they don't need to create laws giving you permission to live. The only law that needs to exist is to not hinder another persons right to exist freely. The illusion that a piece of paper telling you it's okay to own a gun or it's wrong to shoot someone with it is all kind of arbitrary don't you think? You either will or wont get a gun and you will or wont shoot someone with it regardless of what a piece of paper says, it's called morality. You either believe in taking someone's free will away from them or you don't. Laws that claim to give you rights is just a piece of paper saying "hey we give you permission to exist, carry on." Well thank you governor, but I didn't need your permission to exist, you didn't create me and you don't control me. That's my perspective at least.
I came here to help out but that was a waste of your time, the person is going in circles, TBH.
Common sense is lost on some people, forget the terms and the jargon...... just common sense.
I don't know where you live but enjoy your free-will and existance without fear, bro. Hinting at the morality and existance, but I had to read this multiple times to realize it makes less sense and it's just a rebellion. Cheers!