I'm asking you what makes this principle that you do like so much better than principles that other people like? And I'm mainly getting sulky attitude in return.
No, what you're gettin' is: I can't give you what you want. I can ask, and have asked,
is there anyone here who objects to the idea that he is a free man with a right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property? and I can point to an ethical system based on each of us bein' free men, each with a right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property, as bein' better (how can it not be?). But I can't, to the amoralist, show this as moral fact.
*
But if somebody else cooks up a set of rights including not to die of poverty and shit, then everyone agrees that this supersedes your right to not pay any taxes, you can whitter about every inconvenience you ever experience being slavery as much as you like, it's just a case of your prefererred right being overriden for a purpose in accordance with other rights. I know what your opinion agianst that is, but I don't see anything that makes one particular opinion special against all the others out there.
Oh, from your perspective as someone with no claim to yourself, the majority wins...not becuz the majority is
right but simply becuz they
are the majority. And you, with no claim to anything (other than what's allowed by the majority), well, you may not
like what the majority demands of you, or restricts you to or from, but -- if you're gonna be consistent (and, of course, you don't have to be) -- you have no foundation to resist. If your government, backed by
the will of the people, decides trannies are a menace that must be contained or eliminated, well, them's the breaks.
You certainly can't argue (well, you
can, but who'd take
you seriously?) the trans-person has any
rights. you
could argue they have
privileges, sure, but that's all (understandin', of course, that what
the people give,
the people can take away).
Taxes: now, you, as you have no claim to diddly (beyond what is granted you by the majority) you'll pay, you have no reason not to other than
I don't like it. Doesn't matter if it's feeding the poor or buildin' bombs. You have no real objection to offer. Certainly, you can't claim anyone has a right to food or no right to bombs (well, you
can but it has no backin').
*
So there's nothing wrong with Harbal's position on the matter of rights.
He was in & out so fast, I don't recall what his position was.