Comment: No prob. Best of luck in your

(See in situ)


No prob. Best of luck in your

No prob. Best of luck in your new location.

Yeah, I wouldn't deny that their is an innate desire for freedom from external control. Children display this even when the control is for their ultimate good. Criminals display this when being restrained from committing crime and mayhem or resisting being apprehended. It applies regardless of the right or wrong of it.

Likewise, there have been millions of people happy in their dependence, happy in having their lives ordered by others, happy not to have to plan one's long term future out, happy even as the property of others. Their have been slaves who have died for their masters, killed themselves at the death of their masters, sincerely mourned their masters. There are people who, given complete freedom, would end up in such straits that they'd contract themselves into slavery, make themselves wards and dependents, etc.

Both impulses exist, and the freedom impulse applies regardless of the justice of the coercion (arrest for actual crime, being forcefully prevented from stealing or fighting or pursuing the opposite sex too eagerly, etc.). Again, children rebel at the imposition of curfews, proper diet, chores, studying books, etc.

Our impulses by themselves aren't any proof of a morality or evidence that the impulse must inherently be respected by all others as a natural right.

Hunger is a natural impulse, and it does not grant anyone a natural right to a full belly. Sexual desire is an innate impulse, it does not provide a natural right to sex or reproduction. Arguing natural rights from natural impulses is a dead end road.