Comment: No, I'm talking about rights in reality & in definitional terms.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You are talking about rights (see in situ)

No, I'm talking about rights in reality & in definitional terms.

You are attempting to change the definition of terms, because in your mind (as you've expressed), how they're applied changes the very definitions of the terms themselves, rather you're repeatedly stating that, in fact, definitions are wholly dependent on how they're exercised and used, NOT what the word actually means.

If so, why have word definitions at all, then??

As Block's former student, if you cannot fathom what a "right" is vs. how a right is applied in reality, vs. me clearly explaining to you the difference between current applications of it as it stands in current legal Constitutional paradigm, vs. what it technically is, how it is applied, how it is not applied, etc. I don't see the point.

More so, allow me to ask you the same question:

Do you understand at all what I'm saying?

This is a common response to those whom one fails to convince, successfully: just because I disagree with you based on merits (or SEEM un-empathetic to your needs or intellectual positions) does not mean I don't understand you, or what you are saying, why you are saying what you are saying, or where you're coming from.

Clearly, you still do not understand the point I've been trying to make:

Rights are an idea, not something inherent. Rights don't exist apart from us.

Frankly, so are every single thing we humans express: words in languages are merely commonly communicable collection of expressible terms that are often codified (though not always, but mainly culturally agreed upon) to describe an object and/or idea(s).

We quite literally make up what is right.

Yes, no shiite, like every other thing humans label and describe.

But, that's exactly what ideas and concepts are: humans literally create them out of thin air, sometimes, though often, but not always.

That said, we're talking about concepts described as a word definition that derived out of human conducts and interactions over a long period of human history, ie. definition.

So then, I'd ask you again: If so, why have word definitions at all, then??

As such, one can argue NOTHING is "inherent": we're describing concepts understood and exercised by humans.

Human concepts "don't exist apart from us" because for you and me, we can only see ideas and concepts animated/manifested WHEN and IF a human acts on it.

Like, duh! NO shiite.

Still, that doesn't negate the concept itself, just because it is NOT being exercised.

If my body dies, does the fundamental concept or notion of what humans call a right to defend oneself/right to own property, etc. die with it?

No.

But, that is not what is being discussed here.

We're not talking definitions of terms, as terms for the sake of terms: languages and words live on, with or without you or me. So the whole argument about these concepts/ideas do or do not exist in vacuum is moot.

Of course, no exercisable human ideas exist apart from us. Ideas aren't physical trees, or everything else in nature.

As you clearly state, yes rights are ideas, along with EVERY non-physical thing, we humans describe or express. That's why I've been refuting your understanding of what "rights" are, as definitions of terms. Not on some metaphysical New Age 'frequency' level. lol.

These are not some fairy tales; you can research these in academic legal papers.

Rights, are rights, are Rights.

You cannot keep calling oranges, as tangerines and expect to be correct.

You're still misunderstanding word definition of what a right is, vs. when it can or cannot be exercised, and how just because a right is voluntarily limited from being exercised contractually, does not negate its fundamental existence as a right.

I can clearly see where you're coming from and what you're stating, because I'm able to re-communicate your points and what you're stating, back to you, even though I disagree with you. But, clearly you are still stuck on rights as being defined by one's conditional ability to exercise them. Not so. Definitions are important, if you are to debate with someone on merits of concepts and ideas, in a given discussion.

I'd say, let it be. It's getting pointlessly circular, at this juncture.

Like I said, no bigs.

Cheers.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"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