First off, I do think that violence is messed up and unacceptable, but I don't think that there is such a thing as "objective (aka "natural") rights". Can anyone give a solid argument that rights are objective/"natural"?
A right identifies what men are morally able to do without anyone's permission. Leonard Peikoff states this in the following way: Your thread title states a conclusion but your OP fails to support that conclusion. Can you elaborate?
Why is it that people who think rights are objective always are so sexist as to say "a right identifies what MEN are morally able to do" and "only 'free' (whatever it means to be "free") MEN do this and that"? Why can't women or transexuals or hermaphrodites or even intelligent feeling animals have rights? Anyways. Ayn Rand was a twunt (combination of two very derrogatory words there for ya), but back to the main point, that's your subjective definition of a "right" (that is, "what MEN are 'morally', whatever morality is, able to do without anyone's permission"). I didn't intend to give my reasoning for why rights are not objective in the OP.
The principle of multiple definitions is in play. The term "men" is defined by it's use here as an identifier of all human beings regardless of race, sex, color or orientation. Don't have a cow. Women, transexuals and hermaphrodites ARE men in this context. Substituting ad hominens for reasoned arguments against a particular view or postion reflects badly on you. If you intend this to be a debate, then debate the topic or delete your own thread for the benefit of everyone here.
In America, the Founders declared that certain inalienable rights are bestowed on human beings by the Creator. It does not say 'objective' or 'natural' rights. This is a statement of morality 'backed' by a higher power than any human being and is based on belief as well as the natural fact that human beings flourish when not oppressed by other human beings. You question, however, begs a 'black or white' answer and there really is none IMO.
There is something subjective about what rights people "should" have. One person could say you have the right to live, another could say you have the right to stab little kids with an ice pick on a whim.
You missed the part about me saying that your definition of "rights" as being subjective. You gave your subjective interpretation of what rights are lol
The Right to Life is not subjective. The Right to Freedom is not subjective. The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness is not subjective.
A natural right is the right to do whatever you want. Everyone has the right to do whatever they want. That's messy. That obviously needs to be limited since we live in socities.
If we are equal then our rights cannot interfere with other rights then the basis of all men being equal would be shattered and they wouldn't be rights at all, they would be privileges. All men being created equal means ones rights cannot interfere with anothers rights, that would go against the natural flow of things and bring disharmony and imbalance to the world.
I sure can't. If you think you have the right to criticize the government, do not move to North Korea. Rights are nothing more than what the government allows people to do.
I have said to people many times, "You are washed up on the shore of a deserted island. Walk up the beach and shout out what Rights you have". Then after that when no one heard, go build a shelter, a fire, gather some food and prepare some sharp sticks to fight off predators that couldn't give two hoots what they shouted out as rights. As you say, it's what you are allowed to do within your own society, set by your government.
