The Glade 4.0

The laws describe your legal protections such as due process and so on. Talking about what 'inherent' means is a tangent, I was saying how developing countries don't have different legal concepts from Western countries. And all concepts come from other people... U.S. law originated from British, Napoleonic Code was spread around Europe and South America, and so on.

All rights start and end with ownership of self Lydiaa. If the ownership of self isn't inherent, then I'm pretty confused.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

The philosophy of inherent rights has nothing to do with others respecting or infringing upon them. It just speaks to whether or not they should.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

There's a huge number of people in all countries, developed and developing, who have no idea what rights are or don't really care. However, their rights still exist in all these places and are protected under the law.

And if their rights are violated the know they have been wronged.

I've not ever heard of some innocent with full mental functions who is savagely beaten that thought the action perfectly acceptable.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Aztec sacrificial victims, maybe?

They were usually captured enemies or prisoners. But maybe...who knows.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I think also many domestic abuse survivors are brainwashed into thinking they deserved it.

Extreme boxing. Heck, just regular boxing qualifies, as far as I'm concerned.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

People are stupid, man. They just want handouts, when they want them and exactly how they want them, and if they don't get it, they complain even when there is no other reason to complain other than to defend their position because they're pissed off that they're not getting what they want. Childish ignorance.




I'm going to assume you're kidding. Unless I misunderstand why you think it doesn't matter.

_________________
Ron Paul 2012

Is this a trick question?

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

So you'd apply the same level of force to someone stealing a penny from your son as you would to someone trying to kill your wife?

/edit: Not trying to be offensive but your post is very black and white and doesn't seem to provide for any middle ground.

_________________

Hopwin, you'll have to excuse me for not including my reaction to every scenario (probable or highly improbable) into a post in order not to make it appear "black and white".

However, since you're not trying to be offensive (for the record, I didn't find it offensive, just an attempt at a "gotcha"), I'll humor you. I'm not going to make it a habit to address every fantastical situation someone can come up with in detail.

In case my wife stumbles upon this, no I don't have a son, honey. That said if someone were to be stealing a penny from say, my three year old daughter, here's how I'd process it:

1) I have to assume that the person is a stranger.
2) I'll have to assume I'm not psychic and don't know that this person's intent is merely to "steal a penny".
3) Since my daughters aren't in the habit of waving a penny around I'll have to assume it's in her pocket.
3) This person would either have to be in my home, or somehow have approached my child in public, having first gotten past me.
4) My reaction to a stranger in my home accosting my child, or not, will be very decisive: Whatever is required to remove the threat.
5) I'll assume it's in public.
6) My reaction to a stranger accosting my child in public, by attempting to reach into her pocket, will be very decisive: Whatever is required to remove the threat.

The simple answer: no I wouldn't use the "same level of force", because the "same level of force" would not be required to remove the threat.

Not to mention the fact that I'd be averse to shooting someone in such close proximity to my child.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

What if your child was receiving change from a cashier for, say, a pack of stickers. A penny falls from the pile of change, lands on the floor, and rolls over to the foot of the next person in line. Said person picks up the penny and puts it in his pocket.

_________________

Shoot 'em, shoot 'em 5-6 times (any more would be excessive).

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Sorry just trying to establish if there is some valuation behind the statement you made. Clearly there is so we are back to gray-areas driven more by circumstances than by a hard and fast rule.

I was going to make a point here about how the argument seems to have broken down into those who view everything in absolutes and those who deal more in grays (something about idealism versus realism) but honestly I've forgotten it.

Tasty sandwich for lunch though.

_________________

I'm a thinking human being, not a programmed entity that can only react according to a rigid set of parameters...

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Why not? Ice is free here. (from about mid-November through April.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

So, if you get paid $25/hour at your job, and some guy steals $50 from you, you feel that he has wronged you in effectively the same way as if he had forced you to perform two hours of involuntary labor for him? And what does the word "effectively" mean in your comment? Does it imply that, contra the equivalence being drawn, you feel there are actually meaningful differences between the two violations of your rights? If so, what are those differences?

I ask because my view of property rights as secondary to personal rights is based, in part, on the idea that the transfer of self from person to object that underpins property rights is imperfect; that although humans form an attachment to our possessions (i.e. a sense of ownership of and identification with them), there remains a clear mental and emotional distinction and a hierarchy in which integrity and control of our person is valued more highly than integrity and control of our possessions.

The emotional distinction is wrong. It is fundamentally the same and it is by using our mental qualities that we come to understand this.

There are no meaningful distinctions between taking the fruit of two hours of labor or forcing someone to labor for that two hours. Two hours of one's life has been taken against one's will.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Logically, there are some minor differences.

For instance, if I steal RD's television, he'd have to calculate depreciation on it at the point it was stolen, and then factor inflation and pay increases over that same time frame, before he would know how much of his life I'd stolen. :p

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

The acting of slavery is despicable based on duration or the nature of the action itself?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

can be fun for all

Depends what alignment I'm playing at the time.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

But that goes against the "human nature" foundations of natural rights theory, Elm. You said yourself, upthread, that even if you raise a kid outside of society, he will instinctively react negatively to force used against him. I think it's intuitively obvious that the same kid would have a stronger negative reaction to having his possession taken against his will than to being forced to perform labor against his will. His natural instinct would be to make a distinction between self and object. A theory of rights that is based on human nature should reflect that distinction.