A right as defined by Black's Law Dictionary
You want to rely on dictionary definitions for a discussion of rights?
According to the Cambridge Advanced Learners dictionary, a right is 'what is considered to be morally good or acceptable'.
Fuck, who'd have thought that dictionary definitions wouldn't really be sufficient for a decent analysis. You didn't need to explain what inherent means to me either, I speak English good like.
Imagine a brick of lead. What is one of the first things you'll notice about this object? That it will be heavy. Extremely high density or weight is an inherent quality of lead. You can't put a lead brick into a vacuum and "suck out the heavy" nor could you put the lead brick into a microwave and zap it until it becomes light and fluffy. Being heavy is one of the main distinguishing attributes of lead.
Heaviness is a judgement applied to the phenomenological perception. The 'fact' that it is solid, bricklike, and lead, are also applied judgements that are culturally shared.
Now remember some dreams you've had. You can't put your horrifying nightmares into a bag and bury them in the backyard. You can share your dreams with others, but you don't have to worry that someone will steal them from you when you're not looking. Your dreams are an inherent part of who you are. No one can extract your dreams from you.
If I forget them am I still the same person? There's nothing 'inherent' about the concept of identity either, it's just a more complicated version of the brick of lead issue
The same is true about your rights. When you die, your dreams will die with you. If someone kills you, they will deprive you of life; but they can never deprive you of your
right to life.
Rights can be violated, however they cannot be taken away. Violating rights tantamounts to pulling the claws and teeth off of a lion and setting him back into his biotope. It is a lion's nature that he needs this stuff. It can be violated, but not taken away. You can pull his claws off, but it does not change the fact that he needs them. This is the answer to the question: Why does violating a man's rights always result in unhappiness? I would argue that it results in
death as well. This is the reason that socialism, statism, collectivism are not only morally wrong; but impossible.
Man is an end in himself and holds no responsibility to God or Jesus or Zeus or the state. How do I know this? Wholly due
to the self evidence of individual rights. To claim that rights are self evident is only to make a firm claim about the epistemological--that is, to say that they can be accepted without proof, but need not be accepted by faith. How is that possible? Because they MUST BE PRESUPPOSED BY ANYONE WHO WISHES TO REFUTE THEM. This is why at the beginning of my post I said that it's already rigged in my favor. The efficacy of making that point is this: when those suggesting that I don't have any inherent rights(such as socialists) try and debate me, they are already playing MY game! They are already engaging in goal directed use of the mind, they are already nibbling at the fruit of freedom's tree. They are already claiming that they are _free_ to hold any view they'd like, that they can prefer this over that and not be punished for it, and that they can engage in reason to ever refine their philosophic and political points of view. You are not free to do this if you don't have rights. (By the way, it is a contradiction to say you PREFER to hold the view that I don't have rights. That's like saying you have a RIGHT to MY stuff. However, you will not be sentenced to infinite fire and damnation if you do, but if you try and implement it, you will be sent to jail.)
Again, when I say they are axiomatic, I mean: they must be presupposed in order to be refuted. If you're looking for debate efficacy, you can't get much better than that! "Hey, you've already bought into my point of view if you're arguing with me!" But what is it about them METAPHYSICALLY,
that makes them self evident? That's what I think you are groping at. Ask yourself, why is it that they are self evident? What is it about being conscious such that the very act of denying one's rights is to proclaim one's right to deny them? What about a human's MIND makes them so
absolutely intrinsic, and inextricable to life?
Precisely because rights and volition are not only intertwined, they are corollaries. Free will is the SOURCE of individual rights, and individual rights are the means of protecting an individual's free will. So when some atheist-communist approaches you and says "Hey, your rights came from God and I don't believe in God, therefore I don't believe in your rights," you can respond by simply patting him on the back and saying with a sigh, "That's alright buddy! My rights are intrinsic in my volitional nature. Doesn't really matter whether God exists."
Ok. So rights are just a fucked up description for existing, according to you. I live, therefore I have a 'right' to life. If someone kills me, how is it that they are not exercising their 'right' to kill me? You might argue that it's a violation, but they can just nod and smile and claim that their right to kill me is intertwined with their volition. Such a conception is empty of meaning or use, you can speak whatever language you want with whatever empty fucking terms you want. I do not agree with your definition, I agree with the Cambridge folks - rights are a social consensus of stuff we think people should have. We call them 'rights' because we think they are important and want to distinguish them.
I'm with Dakryn, you sound like the rebellious teenage son of a dogmatic church going couple who's limited 'rebellion' leads him to dogmatise scraps of philosophy without actually thinking about it. Try actually considering what people say, there's a lot to learn in this world, we don't always know everything.
I think I'm done with the whole responding masochism thing, but we'll see what page long pointless pompous dribble you manage next...
