Comment: Natural Rights make no sense -- I never understood why

(See in situ)

Natural Rights make no sense -- I never understood why

we even talk about them.

Civil Rights (enforced by law, by court, by gun, by kidnapping, by asset theft) are easy to see and understand and even "rely" on.

HOWEVER -- they are only active AFTER the offense; meaning, it might not be you but rather a family member who benefits from the fact that your "rights" were violated when you were wrongly executed.

MEANING -- with any law and in regards to protectionism, it is almost ALWAYS after-the-fact. Meaning the police protect you after your home is invaded, or during the invasion, or long afterwards in the recovery of your belongings.

What they can't do is give you back your "peace of mind"

The kind of "rights" Natural Law folks talk (endlessly about), if not protected / guaranteed / revenged by force-agency (gov't: courts or police) then it's ONLY philosophical musings.

NO RIGHTS protect you in the moment -- if attacked by a Bear your right-to-speak-freely, your right to come-and-go as you please, and your right to regain lost assets is not worthy of mention.

Rights are a set-up for an abdication of self-defense -- If you believe in self-defense and ZERO force-agency then you do not need "rights" nor would you waste your time talking about them.

Every "right" you could list can be taken from you by disease, injury, or death -- if you have no "rights" to allay these forms of forfiture then how are you going to stop a unionized mob, hahahahahaha.

I find the whole conversation to be childish and is has NOT helped to secure the kind of free-society I'm talking about EVER in all human history (not even close).

Locke was born to wealthy people -- stop looking to the dayum wealthy Founders as your "kings of olde" -- If you want a free-society then you are going to have to meditate deeply on Self-Defense.