Comment: no, you're actually arguing contracts, not rights

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Do your rights not change (see in situ)

no, you're actually arguing contracts, not rights

"Do your rights not change depending upon the conditions which surround you?"

Thanks for making my point. It's not a Right, but a 'right' IF it "depends."

A Right, is a Right, is a Right. Period.

You're talking WHEN and/or WHERE you choose to exercise it. If it's destroyed by not exercising it, then it's not a right. A right cannot be destroyed. That's why it's called a "right," NOT a 'right.'

say you're a repo man.

You yourself have the right to any justly acquired property. But contractually, the man you're going after has violated his contract: mainly failed to pay. So you're repossessing what was once 'his' car.

Now, just because you repo-ed his car, that does not mean the man you're justly confiscating from, due to his contractual failure to pay, does NOT mean that man does not have a right to possess any other justly acquired property, from now on or in the future.

He just may not exercise that right, under the violation of the voluntary contract he entered into in scheduled payment for his car; he failed to pay, so collateral collection it is.

That does not mean his right to acquire property is gone, forever, as in destroyed.

Thus the "depend" you're arguing is actually contractual, not a negation or fundamental destruction of that said right to acquire and keep justly acquired private property.

"If I am on your property, then I do not even have the negative rights which Block mentions."

That's because you're on MY property, meaning you AGREE to enter my property VOLUNTARILY, after agreeing to the stipulations/conditions which I put forth.

Right is a Right is a Right.

VOLUNTARILY choosing to limit its exercise is a contractual one, whether written or verbal.

But, it's not a "right" if you merely not exercising it, destroys that right. It's not a right, if once you CHOOSE to not exercise it in one place, means you cannot do it forever.

Contracts, that is what you're talking about.

A RIGHT does not "depend." Otherwise it's not a right.

You have the right to think what you want. NO ONE can control that or destroy your right to do so, regardless of whether you are on your or my property. Your speech is an outward expression of your thoughts. So it's what you choose to communicate for others to hear. Speech isn't a 'constantly on' you have to actively decide TO speak. Meaning you yourself decide where and when you will speak. Well, unless you sleep-talk. But that's whole other discussion.

So, WHEN you speak, is by choice. That doesn't mean your right TO speak depends on WHEN or WHERE you can speak. Otherwise it's not a right.

You have RIGHT to self-defense. So does it stop being a right, just because you CHOOSE to exercise it TX, but not in NY?

Just because NY govt tells you you can't unless you do x, y, z does that mean you can't? Just because natural rights-averse, not to mention even in the Constitutional paradigm, those Oath-violators say you can't does that mean you have no right to self-defense?

Does your right to defend yourself "depend"??

Or WHERE and WHEN you CHOOSE to EXERCISE that right, you do so contractually?

That, is the heart of the matter.

You are talking contracts, not rights.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul