Natural rights and libertarianism

USFREEDOM911 said:
You're not clarifying anything; but you are trying to muddy the waters.

So if someone who is starving takes from someone else has enough, who gets to decide that the other person has enough.
The starving person, the person with the food, or someone else??
And once that decision is made, what's to stop the situation from turning into two people starving now?
Click to expand...

That's why a third, impartial party is required. That's why it's necessary the third, impartial party has the ability to collect data, evaluate the situation, etc.

The rest is just you trying to add more mud to the water, so you can hope to find a way to hide your spinning.
Click to expand...

What am I spinning? How can I possibly make it any more straight forward? It shouldn't be all that complicated to understand.
 
apple0154 said:
That's why a third, impartial party is required. That's why it's necessary the third, impartial party has the ability to collect data, evaluate the situation, etc.



What am I spinning? How can I possibly make it any more straight forward? It shouldn't be all that complicated to understand.
Click to expand...

And you want the goverment to make this decision!!
The same government that has looted Social Security, invaded another country, who continue to spend money on pork barrel items, etc.

Go tell it to your Prime Minister.
 
Yurt said:
i wonder where their sense of rights come from
Click to expand...

In my case they come from common sense or the Golden Rule; Do onto others as you would like done onto you."

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Yurt said:
what if religion wasn't natural?

i believe in god, however, how is it one discusses natural rights with an athiest? enumerated rights? ettc......

watermark, grind et al.....think god is a joke....so, i wonder where their sense of rights come from. themselves. their current culture. their music, their late night snacks. ??

they believe my belief is a joke. so they laugh at it, without ever having to actually rationally consider it. at least from what i've seen on this board.

hence the question(s) to watermark about rights....
Click to expand...
 
Dixie said:
Actually, religion isn't natural. By definition, spiritual belief is supernatural. Atheists will contend that mankind acquired moral codes through social contracts which provided mutual benefit. But this also contradicts nature, as there is no starting point without faith. Before the first social contract was ever considered, someone had to first have faith in man's "goodness" over natural inclinations.
Click to expand...

Not at all. How do you get an animal to trust you? How do animals get other animals to trust them? It's through trial and error.

One lady I worked with showed me a picture of her cat and her cockatiel simultaneously eating off the same plate on the floor. How did the bird come to trust the cat? I doubt it was anything spiritual.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I may not have quoted it word for word; but that is what you said.
Click to expand...

Post 17 I wrote, "It is natural (nature's way) to take from others if it's a question of survival. It is also natural and OK , as well, to take from others in order to survive if the taking does not interfere in the other's survival. "

This is the third time. Do try and understand.
 
apple0154 said:
Post 17 I wrote, "It is natural (nature's way) to take from others if it's a question of survival. It is also natural and OK , as well, to take from others in order to survive if the taking does not interfere in the other's survival. "

This is the third time. Do try and understand.
Click to expand...

You should have looked back, farther in the thread; because in Post #10, you wrote:
apple0154 said:
A mother or father faced with their children starving to death have the "natural right" to obtain food even if it means killing someone else in order to get it.
Click to expand...

Even you can't take back the sound, once the bell has rung.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You should have looked back, farther in the thread; because in Post #10, you wrote:A mother or father faced with their children starving to death have the "natural right" to obtain food even if it means killing someone else in order to get it."

Even you can't take back the sound, once the bell has rung.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, my wannabe bell ringer. Compare that quote to "It is natural (nature's way) to take from others if it's a question of survival. It is also natural and OK , as well, to take from others in order to survive if the taking does not interfere in the other's survival. "

The first one involves insuring survival of ones offspring. The second one involves the survival of themselves. If you are unable to understand the difference let me know and I'll explain it.
 
apple0154 said:
Ahhh, my wannabe bell ringer. Compare that quote to "It is natural (nature's way) to take from others if it's a question of survival. It is also natural and OK , as well, to take from others in order to survive if the taking does not interfere in the other's survival. "

The first one involves insuring survival of ones offspring. The second one involves the survival of themselves. If you are unable to understand the difference let me know and I'll explain it.
Click to expand...

This isn't a discussion about what I understand; but was abouit what you said or what you said you didn't say. :cof1:
 
apple0154 said:
Ahhh, my wannabe bell ringer. Compare that quote to "It is natural (nature's way) to take from others if it's a question of survival. It is also natural and OK , as well, to take from others in order to survive if the taking does not interfere in the other's survival. "

The first one involves insuring survival of ones offspring. The second one involves the survival of themselves. If you are unable to understand the difference let me know and I'll explain it.
Click to expand...

If you're in an place where everyone has no other option than to kill others for food your obviously in some sort of anarchy where there aren't any rules anyway.
 
I'm also just annoyed that the bratted-ones seem to think that just because they popped some snibbling brats out of their vagoos they are entitled to everything in society and single people have no rights. Fuck children. Families should take the last boats out of the Titanic.
 
Wickedjews said:
I'm also just annoyed that the bratted-ones seem to think that just because they popped some snibbling brats out of their vagoos they are entitled to everything in society and single people have no rights. Fuck children. Families should take the last boats out of the Titanic.
Click to expand...

You were a child once, or did you forget!
 
Wickedjews said:
I'm also just annoyed that the bratted-ones seem to think that just because they popped some snibbling brats out of their vagoos they are entitled to everything in society and single people have no rights. Fuck children. Families should take the last boats out of the Titanic.
Click to expand...

i actually almost agree with you...i don't want kids...yet society demands we have kids

i don't think the belief is due to entitlement....rather....having kids propagates the society...it has been that way from the beginning
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
This isn't a discussion about what I understand; but was abouit what you said or what you said you didn't say. :cof1:
Click to expand...

It has evolved to be a discussion of what you understand because it's obvious you don't understand.

In msg 36 you wrote, “According to apple, it's OK to kill someone else if you're starving and someone else has more then you think they "need".

I neither said nor implied that. What I did write was, "A mother or father faced with their children starving to death have the "natural right" to obtain food even if it means killing someone else in order to get it."

It is a "natural right" that all species adhere to. An innate reaction. And it's quite different than saying one has the natural right to kill if they are starving.

In msg. 17 I wrote, “It is natural (nature's way) to take from others if it's a question of survival. It is also natural and OK , as well, to take from others in order to survive if the taking does not interfere in the other's survival" which shows I further clarified my statement prior to your msg.# 36.

Perhaps you should take your eye off the bell and keep it on the ball. :)
 
Wickedjews said:
If you're in an place where everyone has no other option than to kill others for food your obviously in some sort of anarchy where there aren't any rules anyway.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Recall the "let them eat cake" remark? That was said in a time and country when there were laws. However, it quickly degenerated into anarchy because the people were hungry knowing others had plenty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top