February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Prelude To Ruin:If you don't have the right to not be raped, tortured, or murdered so long as somebody else thinks it's okay to do so, you have no rights at all.
That is true. The only natural right is the right of the strongest.
alimentarius: Prelude To Ruin:If you don't have the right to not be raped, tortured, or murdered so long as somebody else thinks it's okay to do so, you have no rights at all. That is true. The only natural right is the right of the strongest.
Might makes right is a self-refuting theory for libertarians
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Possibly, but the burden of proof is on the libertarians to prove that natural rights exist.
Natural selection does not necessarily mean right of the strongest.
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
Laughing Man: alimentarius: Prelude To Ruin:If you don't have the right to not be raped, tortured, or murdered so long as somebody else thinks it's okay to do so, you have no rights at all. That is true. The only natural right is the right of the strongest. Might makes right is a self-refuting theory for libertarians
Unless one proves that it is more advantageous for the strongest not to use violence, but to instead cooperate in society via the division of labor.
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
As an evolutionist I believe the concept of rights is a construct of our brains. The concept has obviously been benefitial to the survival of our species, but that doesn't make the rights themselves real.
alimentarius: As an evolutionist I believe the concept of rights is a construct of our brains. The concept has obviously been benefitial to the survival of our species, but that doesn't make the rights themselves real.
Evolutionary theory doesn't reject natural rights. Evolutionary theory is fully embedded in natural rights.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
It still makes them tools, however, & utilizing those tools makes them quite real via the consequences of following them.
The burden of proof is on any proponent of aggression who wishes to interrupt any peaceful activity, regardless of natural rights to provide a compelling rationale for their action. Evolutionary theory is neutral to rights. It can explain their origin but if you think it thereby dislocates them, you'd need to demonstrate their mutual exclusivity. Such has not been done.
To darkness I condemn you...
Jon Irenicus: Possibly, but the burden of proof is on the libertarians to prove that natural rights exist. The burden of proof is on any proponent of aggression who wishes to interrupt any peaceful activity, regardless of natural rights to provide a compelling rationale for their action. Evolutionary theory is neutral to rights. It can explain their origin but if you think it thereby dislocates them, you'd need to demonstrate their mutual exclusivity. Such has not been done.
In theory, the burden of proof is on any proponent of positive obligation, whether it is the aggressor trying to legitimize violence or the victim arguing his case for obligatory non-aggression.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
That's true.
And in practice since it is the aggressor who wishes to supercede the claim of innocent individuals contracting, the burden of proof rests with them. And should it have occasioned they somehow came to illicitly possess property again the burden of proof is on them as to why it is OK for them to aggress to acquire property but not for everyone else. Consistency, like salt to a slug in the state's case.
zefreak:In theory, the burden of proof is on any proponent of positive obligation, whether it is the aggressor trying to legitimize violence or the victim arguing his case for obligatory non-aggression.
alimentarius:As an evolutionist I believe the concept of rights is a construct of our brains. The concept has obviously been benefitial to the survival of our species, but that doesn't make the rights themselves real.
"Rights" are a social/mental construct that allows - to gether with other institutionalized ideas, assumptions and rules - to solve certain problems between problem. It works sufficient in some countries. But that doesn't mean that this is the only way to go or that this idea has to be implemented globally.
earthmoving
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap