The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: I may be able to help with this

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: As much as I hate to agree (see in situ)

I may be able to help with this

Your rights are not what 1, 9, 100, or 435 members of a club say they are.

The practical minded may think, 'well right or wrong, that's just the way it works, I get, or don't get, what they say'.

But that is due to a misunderstanding of the nature of rights and specifically what a right is. We all agree you have a right to life or self defense. We all agree rights are unalienable. If you are struck by lightning were your rights violated? Are your rights violated if someone doesn't buy you a gun to protect you? Or are your rights violated if the police don't get to your house in time?

That seems absurd but this is the logical consequent of thinking rights are rights to things. When something results in absurdities we should back up.

If we all have rights, and they are unalienable, then we can rule out a lot of things people think are rights. It also lends us a clue to what they are.

Skipping a lot of steps.. rights are the moral authority for action. Rights are about morality. Rights are the moral authority for action in pursuit of a set of goals, which pursuit does not automatically create a contradiction or conflict with someone else pursuing the same goal for themselves.

IE your right to act in self defense does not automatically and necessarily come into conflict with someone else's right to self defense. However any supposed 'right' to murder does necessarily create conflict.

Rights aren't the sum of morality. However rights are necessary for morality. If you start from the assumption that there are no rights then you not only might, you must end up with an immoral system that boils down to nihilism.

You cannot build a moral system that is predicated on systemic violation of rights.