Re: Re:
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:30 am
13, 18, 21 - depends upon The State.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:57 pmYou are all over the map.henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:13 pm "The only right anyone has is what he can claim and fight for on his own."
No, your self-ownership, your right to your life, liberty, and property, is intrinsic to you. Whether you can successfully defend yourself or not doesn't negate that self-ownership or right to life, liberty, and property, no, it only means someone one else is wrong in depriving you of yourself (life, liberty, or property).
#
"What natural law gives you the right to life?"
Natural law describes what it 'is (the individual self-owns)'. It doesn't stop fire from singein' my keister or thieves from takin' my wallet. No my keister and wallet have to be defended by me.
#
"Liberty is a legal term and your right to liberty can be taken from you by the law whenever it wants."
Locke would disagree; I do disagree. Liberty is not merely a legal term, and -- yeah -- bad law, by bad law makers, can be exercised against me but that doesn't make it right.
#
"As to property. buy a piece of land anywhere and see how long you can keep it if the governments want to expropriate it."
So, as you reckon it, here is no moral dimension to Reality, no right or wrong. So: should government take you, force you to labor, this is A-OK, yeah? If not: why?
You say: "Depriving another of his life, can sometimes be the right thing to do."
If Reality is amoral: how can it be the right thing or the wrong thing? If it's all subjective: why is it wrong for the fella to rob the bank? Why is it right that I should stop him from killin' a bystander?
"it 'is (the individual self-owns)'."
At what age does one become self-owned?
Not a baby, not a toddler not anyone who has not reached the age of reason.
If you see someone about to murder and do not kill him if you can, then not killing him is immoral.
Regards
DL