The Daily Paul has been archived.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: We have to be clear on definitions, and get it right,

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Well, from my perspective, (see in situ)

We have to be clear on definitions, and get it right,

if you want to truly debate the issues.

To wit:

Rights ARE NOT contractually based. Those are called "terms" and "stipulations" and "conditions."

Well, from my perspective, contracts define rights.

Yes, that's why that's your "perspective," which is an expression of your opinion, not a definition of the word, "Rights."

I don't even have the right to free speech if I am on someone else's property.

Yes and No: as I explained previously, that's because you VOLUNTARILY AGREED to enter his property on those terms, but just because you agreed to limit an exercise of a right, does NOT destroy the right. Otherwise, if so, then after leaving your that said property in that example, then you would not have right to "free speech" afterwords. An outside person/party/entity can force/enforce a restriction of the exercise of a right, but not destroy it forever. Otherwise, as per proper definition, it is not a right.

But the thing about other people's property? You have NO RIGHT to be there, unless the property owner allowed you to. So, house rules.

My rights on the property of someone else are defined by the terms of my agreement with the ownership.

No, the only rights you have, once you VOLUNTARILY agree to enter someone else's property under specific terms, is the sanctity of your physical body. Hey, isn't that exactly like the same amount of rights you've had, before you entered his/her property?

And again, NO: your "rights" are NOT "defined by terms" those are your VOLUNTARY contractual agreement. Your rights don't depend on contracts, otherwise it's not a right, as per the proper definition.

Certainly I have the right to think what I want. But if I expose my thoughts on someone else's property then they can certainly expel me.

Why should that come as a surprise? But does that destroy your right to do so? No, as per proper definition of the word, "Rights."

I have no right to defend myself if I have violated the property of someone else.

Um, that, would be a big fat: no shiite*


Because in that example, you violated someone else. You know, the whole no "INITIATION of force"-thingy?

Cited example in your quoted statement above, is akin to an armed burglar expecting to mount a stand-your-ground castle doctrine after invading and killing a rightful homeonwer. You have no such legal recourse, if and when you violate rights of others. Thought that too was self-evident, no?

Again, you're arguing contracts and violations.

If you have already violated someone else's rights, you DESERVE what you get.

Ahh... but here's the rub: but still, does that negate your right to defend yourself against another prisoner trying to kill you, once you're jailed for your previous crimes?


A right cannot be destroyed, period.

But, when and where you exercise it can be limited voluntarily or involuntarily by force.

So, if you've violated someone else's rights and are jailed, all that is simply someone who chooses to exercise bigger more intimidating force, will, from that day forth, choose to prevent you from exercising it.

Ah... but I'd still caveat that with one more asterisk: that still does not mean your right to defend yourself is destroyed.

Huh? You say?

Sure, the courts, the Constitutional paradigm will argue that once you violate someone else, you've 'forfeited that right.'

Yes, Legally AND Lawfully speaking. And, there's a difference; former is legalese/statutes and the latter is Common Law; longer discussion for another day.

But, technically?


Huh? You say again?

Yes, the proper reality description would be that not that you've "forfeited your rights," what's actually happening is, they're PREVENTING you from exercising that right, NOT destroying that right.

Because, what is the Constitution and legalese, but contracts?

You've violated that contract (that you've never signed, but for the sake of discussion, suspend the anarchist in you for the sake of argument), once you violated someone else's rights. No?

Yes, that means others will choose to prevent you from exercising your right, by locking your ass up.

It's like speech and thought.

You STILL have a right to speak and think even if your prison warden tells you you can't: you'll just get your ass beat once you do, open your mouth.

But still, it doesn't stop you from speaking or thinking. Because it's your right to do so, as per proper definition of the term, "Rights."

WHERE & WHEN you can exercise your rights may be limited by contract, be it verbal or written, or in the example you proffered, you've physically violated and initiated aggression against someone, so in its aftermath, you will be physically limited in exercising by a third party, mainly the govt prison.

Under current legal paradigm? Sure, they say 'take his rights away' but what they're actually still saying is: 'we will punish you because you've initiated force against others, so we will restrict when and where you can exercise it even more.'

That's all the state CAN do: even prisoners have the right to defend themselves from another prisoner trying to shiv you to death in the communal shower or cafeteria or laundry room, no?

Does that right to defend yourself get physically fundamentally destroyed? Or, limited/restricted by outside force?

Now, semantically, I accept your proposition that in the eyes of the current law, if the State restricts me from exercising then it's de facto same thing, as it being NOT a 'right' but a conditional privilege.

I wholly understand your argument. I'm simply refuting how your perspective attempts to define the term, what a "right" is.

But, truly and realistically, no one, no govt, no corporation can destroy ANY rights: be they right to think, speak, or defend yourself. Period. It's only when outside physical force impedes it that it's limited in exercise from. But that still does not negate it as a right.

Rights are part of who you are. Period.

That's why Natural Rights are often synonymously referred to as "negative rights."

Just because the State passes a law that says "you cannot breathe if you're convicted of x, y, z" but not execute you, yet, does that mean you have no right to breathe?


Yeah, to a certain extent, like many libertarian absolutes, the argument and examples can seem like they go 'out there,' but regardless, but in the finality: a right is something that cannot be destroyed. Period.

You're still debating with me when and where it can be exercised, there for it depends.

I wholly understand where you're coming from.

But my rebuttal is that just because something can be limited to where and when it can be exercised by an outside entity (as to restrict you have to have another party preventing you from exercising it), does not fundamentally destroy it, if it is in fact a Right.

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