... first off, you used the communal computer and I told you not to. ;-)
But seriously, the disagreement here is that you are using the term "use" in a way that omits the moral element.
Morality is simply the idea of how we SHOULD act with regard to one another.
If the concept of rights is valid, then it necessarily also includes a moral element. One can use a car, or one can JUSTIFIABLY use a car. The thief steals a car and uses it, but he is not justified in doing so.
If the concept of rights is not valid, then NOBODY can justify or not justify use of property. Therefore, you cannot justify the use of "your" computer. (And in such a society, there would be no computers to use because nobody would have incentive to create them.)
Rights are a concept. They do not exist in the physical world. We cannot physically touch a right, but if we are to live in a civil world then we will have to come to agreements. The alternative is an uncivilized world, in which case debates are pointless. In an uncivilized world, only fighting ability matters, as with the animals.
If rights are not valid, then you do not have any moral argument to defend your speech. Stop saying what you are saying or you will get a bullet in the head. You cannot defend against that other than to have your own bullets.
Rights are a means of separating one person's actions from another person's harm. I can swing my arms as much as I want, unless my arm swinging punches you in the face. I am not morally justified in doing that unless it is in self-defense or the defense of others whom you are harming.
If a person thinks rights are not valid, then they should not complain if someone punches them, steals their property, tells them to shut up, or shoots them. And they should not complain when anyone does any of those things to anyone else.
If the whole society is in a free-for-all, then the society won't last. The fact that the society has lasted for a long time is proof that humans do, in some way or another, accept the idea of rights. And that includes you, because you take actions every day to preserve and enhance your own life.
If you try to claim that rights do not exist, then you will have to use your body in some way to do so, which proves that you believe that you exercise a right to speak, write, or type. By trying to disprove rights, per se, you are demonstrating that rights do exist. It is axiomatic for that reason.
The concept of "communal rights" is self-contradictory, and the OP probably used that concept because true communists use this concept all the time. But they can only do so by omitting morality from human life. Use of property does not happen in a vacuum, it happens in the real world, where humans do factor moral decisions into their actions.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: