{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/27/2017 4:58:40 PM
44
No rights exist except those one has the power to enforce in a given situation.
English
-
Hello Thrasymachus.
-
Rights are normative, not descriptive, wouldn't you agree?
-
Certainly not descriptive, but I wouldn't say that rights are normative, necessarily. Someone (or something) with the power to enforce rights that could in no way be considered part of the norm would not necessarily be hindered by that characteristic. Saying they are normative would be putting unnecessary restrictions on what rights are. They don't have to be predicated on norms. Descriptive would be more akin to what what SpiRits has been (sort of) talking about. Hard to say, though, since his posts aren't entirely coherent.
-
[quote]Certainly not descriptive, but I wouldn't say that rights are normative, necessarily. Someone (or something) with the power to enforce rights that could in no way be considered part of the norm would not necessarily be hindered by that characteristic. Saying they are normative would be putting unnecessary restrictions on what rights are. They don't have to be predicated on norms. Descriptive would be more akin to what what SpiRits has been (sort of) talking about. Hard to say, though, since his posts aren't entirely coherent.[/quote] Just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative]Normative[/url] claims are based on a value judgement, whether something is good or bad, they're about what we ought to do. Descriptive claims just, well... [i]describe[/i] the way things are. Alone, they offer no information in terms of what one should do. I don't believe that "rights" describe some existing thing, I believe they inform how we should behave.
-
Rights are typically described as being entitlements, so from that view they would exist as much as the capacity to be entitlements exists. From your standpoint, they don't actually exist at all (per your post), so my original point would stand.
-
Defining rights as entitlements merely moves the problem to a new word. Rights, just like any other abstract ideas, don't exist independently. And yet abstract ideas determine every aspect of our political relationships. Why? Because they do exist, in the way they inform the actions of those who believe in them. I have beliefs about the rights of others, which implies a belief in a duty to uphold those rights and protect them how I can. I believe in those rights even when they are violated, which is to say that rights do not cease to exist the moment they are failed to be enforced.
-
It doesn't really matter when we are both using different definitions. Your statement that rights exist regardless of enforcement depends on the use of a definition I am not using. This is pointless.
-
Your original post was an argument over definitions. I don't believe the one you're using is meaningful. If laws ceased to exist the moment someone successfully violates them, then the idea of [i]laws[/i] wouldn't be very meaningful, and the same applies to rights.
-
I'm fairly certain the OP was using the same definition as I was. His entire argument hinged on the concept of rights being entitlements. Not comparable. And the part about laws isn't valid. Nothing about rights being entitlements would mean that violating a right would automatically result in the right not existing. That should be quite evident from the assertion that rights exist dependent on the capacity to enforce them. Them not existing when violated would go against the entire idea of enforcement. Can't enforce something if it stop existing. The fact that laws have meaning even when violated doesn't go against what I've said. What would be pertinent would be the amount of meaning laws have if they were nothing but words on a page with no backing whatsoever. Having a law against doing jumping jacks in public is pretty meaningless if nothing is going to stop people from doing jumping jacks in public.
-
[quote]No rights exist except those one has the power to enforce in a given situation.[/quote] "Power" menaing, you are on there private property.
-
...what?
-
[quote]...what?[/quote] I must have interpreted what you said wrong...could you clarify?
-
Rights can only exist with the power to enforce them. "Property rights" is just words if a mob kicks you out of your home and you have no recourse.
-
[quote]Rights can only exist with the power to enforce them. "Property rights" is just words if a mob kicks you out of your home and you have no recourse.[/quote] Priavte property, is property that exists outside the states influence. You own your own labor, it is your property, and the natural resources you use, and mold, using your labor is your private property. You dont need "rights" when there is true universal self ownership.
-
What if someone takes it from you?
-
[quote]What if someone takes it from you?[/quote] This is theft, an act of agression, they are a criminal.
-
OK. And? A group of people take over your home and property and you are all alone. There is no police force/judicial system in place. You can call it theft if you want, but what does it matter? It belongs to them now and you can't do anything to change that.
-
[quote]OK. And? A group of people take over your home and property and you are all alone. There is no police force/judicial system in place. You can call it theft if you want, but what does it matter? It belongs to them now and you can't do anything to change that.[/quote] No police? No judicial system? Sure there is, simply supplied through private voluntary exchanges.
-
i think u ought to be done with the dumb amerifat since they r incapbale of doing virtuous good
-
Then that is an existence of power. So you agree with me?
-
Edited by SpiRits: 9/27/2017 6:16:27 PM[quote]Then that is an existence of power. So you agree with me?[/quote] Define power. Perhaps security and arbitration through means of volunteerism, not force and coercion.
-
Edited by Kamots: 9/27/2017 6:19:37 PMDo I seriously need to define "power"? You realize that if two groups have opposing intent and one group wants to directly oppose the others actions, that group has to do so through force, right? If a mob wants to take your home from you and some judicial system "supplied through private voluntary exchanges" wants to stop them, the judicial system has to have some sort of enforcement to do so. "Force" is in the word.
-
[quote]Do I seriously need to define "power"? You realize that if two groups have opposing intent and one group wants to directly oppose the others actions, that group has to do so through force, right? If a mob wants to take your home from you and some judicial system "supplied through private voluntary exchanges" wants to stop them, the judicial system has to have some sort of enforcement. "Force" is in the word.[/quote] Im against initial aggression/force, if force is needed to restore the situation as close to the old standard, I have no objection.
-
Then you agree with me, either way.
-
[quote]Then you agree with me, either way.[/quote] Sure, if we can agree to this...Initiation of force, will possibly turn a violent reaction. This reaction isnt coercion, but rather justifiable violence.
