The Glade 4.0

Natural rights are just ideas, similar to religious beliefs.

Legal rights exist in the real world of cause and effect. If you infringe on someone's legal rights, you can get in serious trouble.

Exactly. If you have natural rights and a quarter, you still can't find a **** phone booth anymore. Legal rights actually matter.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

And by what basis do you think these legal constructs are enacted Lex? Out of the aether?

_________________
"...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

How do you know if X should be a legal right?

How do you know if Y that is a legal right should not be?

_________________
"...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

By your reasoning the biochemical process in my mind that represents the idea of rights are tangible.

There ya go, you're welcome.

_________________
"...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

Its a consideration of the species - not at any given point of development in the life-cycle of the species. You know this. Stop playing ignorant.

_________________
"...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

The primary basis is that enough people want them, so they support a system with these legal constructs. If people wanted cows to have the right to walk around the streets and block traffic, then that would be the law as well.

When enough opinions by influential people are aggregated together, they form the basis for law.

There is no "should." There is no moral or ethical "right." Laws don't exist because of right and wrong. Laws exist to facilitate the smooth operation of society. Laws are about creating a societal framework and infrastructure upon which we can build stable and functional cooperative human ventures. There's no such thing as a right law or a wrong law. There are simply effective laws - that accomplish what the lawmaker wants, and ineffective laws that do not.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

That is actually the law in India.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

Which isn't a moral philosophy - its just an appeal to popularity. You have no way to reason what should or shouldn't be a law.

_________________
"...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

There is a should.

Laws exist to do what those who are in power want to the degree they can without jeopardizing their power.

_________________
"...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

The biochemical process in your mind that represents the idea of rights is a tangible thing. You have thoughts and ideas and beliefs - that's a tangible fact. The factual truth of those ideas, thoughts, or beliefs is NOT. There's a difference.

For example, fear is a tangible, real brain reaction that is common to the vast majority of species on earth -- an evolutionary adaptation that facilitates survival and therefore would be highly favored by natural selection. However, just because someone has a tangible, measurable fear of Leporidae does not mean that bunnies are dangerous.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

You haven't demonstrated one.



Assuming this is always axiomatically true (which it isn't; it's really just victimhood reformatted to your needs), so what? What's it got to do with any "should" that may or may not exist?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

On a Universal scale? Nope. Try again.

"Should" is relative to perspective and individual goals.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

I agree. Opinions and wants do exist, though. Some people prefer vanilla icecream over chocolate. Just like many people prefer having legal rights over not.

Animals would probably want the right to not be killed by humans, but unfortunately they lack communication skills, intelligence, and political representation.

My basis would be what would increase the quality of life of everybody in the community the most. For example, I would ban dumping toxic materials into rivers, because it would affect the ecosystem and people downstream negatively. Legal rights increase the quality of life for many obvious reasons.

That's not true in America. For example, the Constitution and many state constitutions prevent people in power from a huge variety of actions.

Technically, it's still true. You have to remember that, at least in principle (if not reality), America's citizens are the ones who are supposed to be "in power." Constitutional limitations on the power of government protect the power of individual citizens from being coopted by those in government.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

If you define emotions as tangible because those thoughts are a chemical response then all ideas are tangible. You can't really have it both ways.

_________________
"...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

On the scale of all human action there is, and since that is the only scale humanity is capable of acting on its all that matters. It's fundamental to any decision making we do.

Do you go for the job offer or stay in this one? Do you buy that latte because you're a bit worn down and it sounds good or do you push on without it? Marry or not. Divorce or not. Have kids or not. Choose which cans of beans to buy. When and how to punish your child?

Those are all should questions.

_________________
"...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

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.


Really. So we don't have wars that aren't declared? We don't have domestic spying?

_________________
"...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

Apathetic constituents allow unconstitutional things happen so obviously that means anyone in power can do whatever they like at any time without consequence. You're like a walking logical fallacy.

If you made a list of all the things a dictator could do, and compared it with everything Barrack Obama or a billionaire could get away with, there would be massive differences.

Still no definition of rights, yet, Elmo. It's time for you to **** or get off the pot.

_________________