[Pants-of-dog]

Assumes facts not in evidence - that all the pseudo-"rights" enumerated by the UN are in fact rights at all.

If that's how you want to look at it. That doesn't change the fact that you seem to think that economic rights are the be-all and end-all of rights.

Feel free to review my posting history. Unfortunately, as I already pointed out, PoFo's server has seen fit to remove from the "see all user's posts" function all my posts older than three months.

It is not my burden of proof to prove myself wrong. I have already put one example of a current thread where I am debating against a libertarian.

That would be because there is no such thing as indigenous rights. Or gay rights. Or the rights of non-whites. There are only individual rights. Since I recognize that indigenous humans, gay humans, and non-white humans are individuals, whenever I speak of the rights of individuals I am perforce speaking of the rights of gay individuals and indigenous individuals and non-white individuals.

I have never seen you once post about how indigenous, gay, or non-white people have more trouble having their individual rights respected than others.

Because communities aren't individuals. The individuals residing in a given community have rights, but they neither gained any extra rights by entering the community nor do they lose any by leaving the community.

Why do you assume that only individuals have rights?

I can't recall the exact thread titles, but I know for a fact I crossed swords with Yihawinak on topics other than the Narwhal harvest, at the very least, and with you on at least one occasion when you were blathering on about the right of First Nations councils to decide whether government could issue without the Council's permission drilling permits on lands their ancestors hunted on.

In other words, you don't actually remember. The fact that you can't remember more than one clear example of ever supporting the libertarian position in non-economic situations suggests my claim is correct.

I've learned from experience you don't use words the same way other people do. Give me an example of a "civil right" you feel should not be trumped by an individual right and I'll give you my take on it.

The right to have the same opportunities as everyone else regardless of race.

Of course they should be allowed to exist. That's not to say they have unlimited scope of action.

Can homeowner associations deny someone the right to buy a house because they are black?

Take that to another thread if you want to pursue it. The UN's Declaration of Human Rights says nothing about animals. I suggest you re-read the title of the thread before making your next post.

I assume that animals can own themselves because they can own their food. Since they own themselves, can we own them?

[SolarCross]

You see POD these guys do not believe in "harm" of any kind except physical injury or monetary loss. It would be inconceivable to them that your hypothetical black person who was called a racial slur and thrown ignominiously out of a public place suffered any "harm".

This is illustrative of why their arguments are so shallow. You are correct though. They do not routinely care about people at any more than the superficial level. Here is proof:
What nonsense. Gibberish.

Are you sure you want to make being rude unlawful? You'd be looking at some serious prison time if it were.

[Phred]

That doesn't change the fact that you seem to think that economic rights are the be-all and end-all of rights.

You persistently misunderstand what I write. There is just one fundamental right, the right to take whatever action you please - with the ever-present proviso that said action not violate the right of another human to do the same. Clearly, actions may be taken that have nothing to do with economic transactions. They are as morally permissible as any other.

It is not my burden of proof to prove myself wrong.

It's not my burden to dredge up old threads of mine. You and I both know I've discussed these things in the past. Why you choose to pretend otherwise is of no concern to me.

I have never seen you once post about how indigenous, gay, or non-white people have more trouble having their individual rights respected than others.

Probably because I never have. So what? You're the one who seems to think group rights trump individual rights, not me. Again, I don't care whether the individual whose rights are being violated is male or female, black or red or white, gay or straight, Commie or Capitalist, which is why I seldom if ever specify the demographic makeup of the individuals under discussion. It makes no difference. Either an individual's rights are being violated or they aren't. Makes no difference which individual to me, though it clearly does to you.

Why do you assume that only individuals have rights?

Because they do. How can you credibly attempt to argue that communities have rights when you have never conceded that the individuals comprising those communities have any?

In other words, you don't actually remember.

I can't remember the titles of the threads, no.

The fact that you can't remember more than one clear example of ever supporting the libertarian position in non-economic situations suggests my claim is correct.

The fact that you can't remember participating in threads in which you did in fact participate suggests your memory is inferior to mine. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the UN's Declaration of Human Rights lists many pseudo-"rights" as actual rights, when they aren't at all.

The right to have the same opportunities as everyone else regardless of race.

In other words, you justify violating the actual rights of those who have done nothing wrong in pursuit of an impossibility. A short, overweight, unattractive Mongol woman of below average intelligence born into an inclement environment (such as the Gobi Desert) to itinerant and uneducated goatherds won't have the same opportunities as a tall, slim, attractive Japanese woman of above average intelligence born into a stable two parent home in a clement environment (such as Wyoming).

Can homeowner associations deny someone the right to buy a house because they are black?

Of course not. What has that to do with the UN Declaration of Human Rights?

I assume that animals can own themselves because they can own their food. Since they own themselves, can we own them?

When the UN Declaration of Human Rights starts adding clauses regarding the rights of animals, we can revisit the issue. Until then, stop trying to haul the thread off topic.


Phred

[Drlee]

What an annoying load of shit this thread has become.

[Phred]

What an annoying load of shit this thread has become.

Doc! Such a pleasure to have your input on matters of substance. You have such a way with words.

What is your opinion as a True Conservative™ in the mold of Barry Goldwater on the UN's Declaration of Human Rights? Does it list only actual rights or has the UN managed to include several trumped up pseudo-"rights" which cannot be realized absent the violation of the actual rights of the individuals expected to provide the things detailed in the pseudo-"rights"?


Phred

[Voluntarism]

That doesn't change the fact that you seem to think that economic rights are the be-all and end-all of rights.

As we discussed way back on Page 5 of this thread:

"Private property rights are instrinsic to Libertarianism and is why they are embodied in the non-aggression principle. That they are "separable" from individuals usually leads to bad thinking about their fundamental nature. As Murray Rothbard said, 'the concept of "rights" only makes sense as property rights. For not only are there no human rights which are not also property rights, but the former rights lose their absoluteness and clarity and become fuzzy and vulnerable when property rights are not used as the standard."

"Economic rights" is a non-term (just like "non-term" is a non-term ). You mean property rights. Your right to free speech, association and the like is actually about your right to liberty which itself is dictated by property rights. Taxizen was cleverly leading you to when and why certain limitations on your freedoms are acceptable and it all comes back to property rights.

When the UN Declaration of Human Rights starts adding clauses regarding the rights of animals, we can revisit the issue. Until then, stop trying to haul the thread off topic.
Phred

And he can just go read the dedicated animal rights thread http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=149520 in which Eran put the arguments fairly clearly.

Why do you assume that only individuals have rights?

This has already been answered (page 30 and repeated on page 39) - a collective cannot gain greater moral ability than what the individuals within that group possesses.

What is morally legitimate for an individual to do is also morally legitimate for a collective to do. Therefore it is morally acceptable for a collective to defend the life, liberty and property of an individual against aggression. Just as an individual is morally allowed to use force for the purpose of defending their rights, so to is it allowable for a collective to use force to defend the rights of the individual. No other use of force by the collective is morally acceptable because - just like no one can obtain greater title than the person they obtained it from - a collective cannot gain greater moral ability than what the individual possesses. As I quoted Bastiat on page 30, "the law" is simply the collective organisation of the individual's right to legitimate self-defense. Hence, there is moral justification for a collective to use force to defend people's rights.

[Drlee]

What is your opinion as a True Conservative™ in the mold of Barry Goldwater on the UN's Declaration of Human Rights? Does it list only actual rights or has the UN managed to include several trumped up pseudo-"rights" which cannot be realized absent the violation of the actual rights of the individuals expected to provide the things detailed in the pseudo-"rights"?

How many times do I have to tell you that I do not believe that taxes are theft before you understand that I do not believe that taxing one person to benefit the people as a whole is not theft. Capiche?

And neither do the vast majority of conservatives.

[Voluntarism]

How many times do I have to tell you that I do not believe that taxes are theft before you understand that I do not believe that taxing one person to benefit the people as a whole is not theft. Capiche?

And neither do the vast majority of conservatives.

Don't need to tell me because I already said that about all collectivist philosophies back on Page 6

You simply need to acknowledge openly like Pants-Of-Dog did that conservatism "is definitely not about any notion of human rights and instead openly say it is about having the power to wield the product and will of others to the outcomes that you deem "worthy" at a given point in time. It is simply about who has the control of the biggest gang of thugs to force your preferences onto others and to rob, beat, kill anyone who disagrees. You should acknowledge that it is a selfish, vile and narcissistic philosophy that disregards the welfare of individuals for some glorified notion of the welfare of humanity. We are all simply expendable and irrelevant in attaining this so-called utopia.

If you happen to want society to be subject to these arbitrary norms then that's your choice, just don't try to draw up a list of so-called "human rights" and instead openly state that, under your ideology, people will be arbitrarily subject to the whims of other people who happen to have the power to inflict harm on you."

These things may sound harsh but that is the bald truth when you cannot provide a consistent moral basis for structuring a peaceful society that does not arbitrarily use violence against individuals within society.

[SolarCross]

So what liberals are calling themselves conservatives now? Will their abuse of the english language never end?
An authoritarian state is not "liberal".
A huge authoritarian state is not "conservative".
Next they will be telling us that they are "intelligent", "honest" and "decent".

[Voluntarism]

So what liberals are calling themselves conservatives now? Will their abuse of the english language never end?
An authoritarian state is not "liberal".
A huge authoritarian state is not "conservative".
Next they will be telling us that they are "intelligent", "honest" and "decent".

It's one of the biggest problems I have on this site. Even ignoring all the other countries, even the Anglophone countries with their common heritage of individualism have very different meanings attached to those words.

[SolarCross]

It's one of the biggest problems I have on this site. Even ignoring all the other countries, even the Anglophone countries with their common heritage of individualism have very different meanings attached to those words.

The Oxford Dictionary has it that in the political context:
liberal = favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform
conservative = favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas

I am aware that in the US the meaning of liberal has come to mean something very different and perverse but I thought the word conservative was still intact.

[Phred]

How many times do I have to tell you that I do not believe that taxes are theft before you understand that I do not believe that taxing one person to benefit the people as a whole is not theft. Capiche?

So you - in your role as a True Conservative™ in the Goldwater tradition - are of the opinion that all the "rights" listed in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights are actual rights that every human being possesses. That every human has the right not just to employment, but to "protection" against unemployment (whatever that means) and to paid vacations. That everyone has the right to food and clothing and housing. That everyone has the right to free education, and that the state has the authority to compel its citizens to be educated even against their will.

Capisco.


Phred

[Rich]

You're the one who seems to think group rights trump individual rights, not me.

No Libertarians are the most fervent defenders of group rights. Because all property has been acquired through group rights. Individual possession of scare natural resources including land is not legitimate. And any property produced through the use of illegitimate property is itself illegitimate. Libertarian property is a performative contradiction. It assume that theft can be made into ownership. Take America for example: the idea that White settlers had the right to claim the land, its rivers, its lakes, its timber, its coal its oil etc, from ocean to ocean and then parcel it out private property to White individuals is the most extreme form of group rights. It is not one whiff different to Heinrich Himmler's plan for the Ukraine which was to defeat the organised resistance and then parcel it out to Aryan individuals.

[Pants-of-dog]

You persistently misunderstand what I write. There is just one fundamental right, the right to take whatever action you please - with the ever-present proviso that said action not violate the right of another human to do the same. Clearly, actions may be taken that have nothing to do with economic transactions. They are as morally permissible as any other.

This is the initial premise, and hypothetically, you should then champion the struggle of all people to have this right respected. In practice, however, you seem to focus on how private economic actors need to have this right respected and seem to ignore others.

It's not my burden to dredge up old threads of mine. You and I both know I've discussed these things in the past. Why you choose to pretend otherwise is of no concern to me.

The only things I remember discussing with you are:

a) property rights, and
b) public health care.

Probably because I never have. So what?

I just want to know why you focus solely on the economic rights of people and ignore other rights.

You're the one who seems to think group rights trump individual rights, not me. Again, I don't care whether the individual whose rights are being violated is male or female, black or red or white, gay or straight, Commie or Capitalist, which is why I seldom if ever specify the demographic makeup of the individuals under discussion. It makes no difference. Either an individual's rights are being violated or they aren't. Makes no difference which individual to me, though it clearly does to you.

Again, you seem to focus only on the economic rights of these people. You do not discuss their other rights. I just want to know why.

Because they do. How can you credibly attempt to argue that communities have rights when you have never conceded that the individuals comprising those communities have any?

That arguments sucks. Seriously.

"Because".

I can't remember the titles of the threads, no.

It doesn't matter. You already agreed that you don't discuss these things.

The fact that you can't remember participating in threads in which you did in fact participate suggests your memory is inferior to mine. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the UN's Declaration of Human Rights lists many pseudo-"rights" as actual rights, when they aren't at all.

Why do you consider them not to be rights?

In other words, you justify violating the actual rights of those who have done nothing wrong in pursuit of an impossibility. A short, overweight, unattractive Mongol woman of below average intelligence born into an inclement environment (such as the Gobi Desert) to itinerant and uneducated goatherds won't have the same opportunities as a tall, slim, attractive Japanese woman of above average intelligence born into a stable two parent home in a clement environment (such as Wyoming).

And you just made some vague accusations and moralising instead of constructing a logical argument.

Of course not. What has that to do with the UN Declaration of Human Rights?

How does a RWL gov't ensure that homeowner associations do not ban black people?

When the UN Declaration of Human Rights starts adding clauses regarding the rights of animals, we can revisit the issue. Until then, stop trying to haul the thread off topic.

Since animals own themselves, we cannot own them. Since we do not own them, we cannot kill them and eat them.

Thus, non-vegetarian diets are immoral according to libertarianism.

Or we can acknowledge that animals do not enjoy human rights. Can we agree on that, Phred?

----------------------------

As we discussed way back on Page 5 of this thread:

"Private property rights are instrinsic to Libertarianism and is why they are embodied in the non-aggression principle. That they are "separable" from individuals usually leads to bad thinking about their fundamental nature. As Murray Rothbard said, 'the concept of "rights" only makes sense as property rights. For not only are there no human rights which are not also property rights, but the former rights lose their absoluteness and clarity and become fuzzy and vulnerable when property rights are not used as the standard."

"Economic rights" is a non-term (just like "non-term" is a non-term ). You mean property rights. Your right to free speech, association and the like is actually about your right to liberty which itself is dictated by property rights. Taxizen was cleverly leading you to when and why certain limitations on your freedoms are acceptable and it all comes back to property rights.

If all rights are property rights, how do gay rights fit into that, or any egalitarian rights?

And he can just go read the dedicated animal rights thread http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=149520 in which Eran put the arguments fairly clearly.

Or you can construct a logical refutation of my argument.

This has already been answered (page 30 and repeated on page 39) - a collective cannot gain greater moral ability than what the individuals within that group possesses.

Sure it can. History abounds with such examples.

Perhaps you mean to say that you find it immoral when a collective gains greater moral ability than what the individuals within that group possesses.

What is morally legitimate for an individual to do is also morally legitimate for a collective to do. Therefore it is morally acceptable for a collective to defend the life, liberty and property of an individual against aggression. Just as an individual is morally allowed to use force for the purpose of defending their rights, so to is it allowable for a collective to use force to defend the rights of the individual. No other use of force by the collective is morally acceptable because - just like no one can obtain greater title than the person they obtained it from - a collective cannot gain greater moral ability than what the individual possesses. As I quoted Bastiat on page 30, "the law" is simply the collective organisation of the individual's right to legitimate self-defense. Hence, there is moral justification for a collective to use force to defend people's rights.

Please explain why a collective cannot gain greater moral ability than what the individual possesses.

You simply need to acknowledge openly like Pants-Of-Dog did that conservatism "is definitely not about any notion of human rights and instead openly say it is about having the power to wield the product and will of others to the outcomes that you deem "worthy" at a given point in time. It is simply about who has the control of the biggest gang of thugs to force your preferences onto others and to rob, beat, kill anyone who disagrees. You should acknowledge that it is a selfish, vile and narcissistic philosophy that disregards the welfare of individuals for some glorified notion of the welfare of humanity. We are all simply expendable and irrelevant in attaining this so-called utopia.

I don't think I said that, or even agreed to that. I don't indulge in rhetoric.

These things may sound harsh but that is the bald truth when you cannot provide a consistent moral basis for structuring a peaceful society that does not arbitrarily use violence against individuals within society.

Neither can RWLs. We discussed this for pages and pages, and you were unable to show that property rights were negative rights.

[Phred]

In practice, however, you seem to focus on how private economic actors need to have this right respected and seem to ignore others.

This is your misinterpretation of my arguments, not the reality of them. The fact that you are unable to follow a line of reasoning to its logical conclusion is your problem, not mine.

The only things I remember discussing with you are:

a) property rights, and
b) public health care.

Your faulty memory is your problem, not mine.

I just want to know why you focus solely on the economic rights of people and ignore other rights.

But I don't ignore other rights. It's just that - as someone else already noted earlier in the thread - Collectivists inevitably draw Libertarians into discussion centered on the economic arena, then whine like butthurt little children when the Libertarian keeps returning to fundamental principles.

Again, you seem to focus only on the economic rights of these people. You do not discuss their other rights.

Your misperceptions and misunderstandings of my very plainly written and easy to understand statements is your problem, not mine.

That arguments sucks. Seriously.

So present your argument outlining the logical process by which communities acquire rights and we'll see whose argument sucks worse. You've never done this and never will because you are incapable of constructing a rational progression from first principles showing how communities attain rights.

Why do you consider them not to be rights?

Because they aren't. The term "rights" refers to freedom of human action, not to end product. You have the right to perform certain actions you believe will result in your attaining a house, for example, but you don't have the right to a house just by the mere fact of your existence. You don't have the right to a job, but you do have the right to act in such a manner as to persuade someone to offer you a job. If you lack a job, you don't have the right to walk up to some businesswoman, point a gun at her, and say "Give me my job right now! And while you're at it, make it a job where I don't have to work more than thirty-five hours a week in order to support myself and my six kids in a comfortable fashion."

You don't have the right to have a trained medical professional treat your ailments for free, but you do have the right to act in such a manner as to persuade her to provide such treatment.

How does a RWL gov't ensure that homeowner associations do not ban black people?

Are you even being serious now? How can a homeowner's situation prevent me from selling my property to whomever I choose?

Or we can acknowledge that animals do not enjoy human rights.

Clearly animals - not being human - don't enjoy human rights, duh. But that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread - the folly of the UN's including in their Declaration of Universal Human Rights list various pseudo-"rights".



Phred

[Phred]

Because all property has been acquired through group rights.

Even the fish I caught with my bare hands (see "noodling")? What about the clay pot I threw and fired the other day?


Phred

[Rich]

Because all property has been acquired through group rights.

Even the fish I caught with my bare hands (see "noodling")? What about the clay pot I threw and fired the other day?

Yes. I live in the south of Britain, virtually all fishing spots are private or highly controlled. No doubt there's plenty of rivers in Oregon with plenty of fish waiting to be caught but the majority of the world's population is not free to fish them. If they were Oregon's rivers would be rapidly depleted. The pot you fired was produced within a social context. A social context that required immense group violence to create.

In Britain good agricultural land has been scare since we've had agriculture. Wood has been in short supply since the end of the middle ages. Obviously if you settle a new continent,e exterminate its indigenous population, for a while you will have locally escaped from resource limits within which the majority of humanity has lived since its inception.

Libertarians seem to have this idea that if you arrive first in a place you get to own the land and its resources for ever. Why? They also seem to think that if you steal land, once you've got away for it for a couple of generations it also becomes yours for ever. Of course you can sell it but then the right to this land for ever passes to the new owner. Again Why?

Libertarianism seems to me to be utterly lacking in any moral foundation.

[Phred]

Yes. I live in the south of Britain, virtually all fishing spots are private or highly controlled. No doubt there's plenty of rivers in Oregon with plenty of fish waiting to be caught but the majority of the world's population is not free to fish them. If they were Oregon's rivers would be rapidly depleted.

I don't live in Britain. I live on the coast of a Caribbean nation. No one owns the ocean.

The pot you fired was produced within a social context. A social context that required immense group violence to create.

LOl… here we go again with the "social" this and the "social" that. The pot I fired was made by me with my hands from clay I bought from a local farmer who sells red clay. No "group violence" was involved in any part of the production process.

Libertarians seem to have this idea that if you arrive first in a place you get to own the land and its resources for ever.

If you homestead it, sure. Who else should own it?

They also seem to think that if you steal land, once you've got away for it for a couple of generations it also becomes yours for ever.

You clearly don't bother reading what is written here. That's not what Libertarians think.


Phred

[Pants-of-dog]

This is your misinterpretation of my arguments, not the reality of them. The fact that you are unable to follow a line of reasoning to its logical conclusion is your problem, not mine.

Your faulty memory is your problem, not mine.

Perhaps.

I will point out that you have not been able to provide a post that would prove otherwise, while I provided a link to a thread wherein I debate (against a libertarian) how a private corporation has the right to fire someone for saying something anti-egalitarian.

But I don't ignore other rights. It's just that - as someone else already noted earlier in the thread - Collectivists inevitably draw Libertarians into discussion centered on the economic arena, then whine like butthurt little children when the Libertarian keeps returning to fundamental principles.

In this thread, we have had two major discussions: "are property rights negative rights or objective?" and "what good are regulations"? Both of these topics are things the RWLs brought up.

That seems to contradict your claim that "collectivists inevitably draw Libertarians into discussion centered on the economic arena".

Your misperceptions and misunderstandings of my very plainly written and easy to understand statements is your problem, not mine.

I said: "I have never seen you once post about how indigenous, gay, or non-white people have more trouble having their individual rights respected than others."

You replied: "Probably because I never have."

In other words, you are agreeing that you seem to focus only on the economic rights of these people. You do not discuss their other rights.

So present your argument outlining the logical process by which communities acquire rights and we'll see whose argument sucks worse. You've never done this and never will because you are incapable of constructing a rational progression from first principles showing how communities attain rights.

My claim:

Communities can have rights.

My argument:

Communities have rights because they have historically been able to claim and defend those rights. These rights are defined and created in the same way as individual rights: through a process of consensus among those who have the power to decide these rights.

Your claim:

Communities cannot have rights.

Your argument:

Because.

Please note that you have not constructed a rational progression from first principles showing how communities cannot attain rights.

Because they aren't. The term "rights" refers to freedom of human action, not to end product. You have the right to perform certain actions you believe will result in your attaining a house, for example, but you don't have the right to a house just by the mere fact of your existence. You don't have the right to a job, but you do have the right to act in such a manner as to persuade someone to offer you a job. If you lack a job, you don't have the right to walk up to some businesswoman, point a gun at her, and say "Give me my job right now! And while you're at it, make it a job where I don't have to work more than thirty-five hours a week in order to support myself and my six kids in a comfortable fashion."

This is a semantic discussion about the definition of the word "rights".

Can you please explain why your definition is more logical than the one the rest of the world uses?

You don't have the right to have a trained medical professional treat your ailments for free, but you do have the right to act in such a manner as to persuade her to provide such treatment.

Actually, I do, as a Canadian. You may disagree with most of the rest of the world about how the word "right" is used here, but the vast majority of the world would agree that Canadians do enjoy a right to necessary health care that is free at point of use.

Are you even being serious now? How can a homeowner's situation prevent me from selling my property to whomever I choose?

By asking you to sign a contract, I assume. It seems that you are saying that communities have whatever rights they are able to enforce.

Clearly animals - not being human - don't enjoy human rights, duh. But that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread - the folly of the UN's including in their Declaration of Universal Human Rights list various pseudo-"rights".

Why don't animals enjoy human rights?

Is it because animals do not have sapient minds such as humans?

Even the fish I caught with my bare hands (see "noodling")? What about the clay pot I threw and fired the other day?

The fish you caught with your bare hands. We agree that the bear who does the same thing has no property right to the fish because the bear lacks a human mind, right?

That clay belongs to someone. If you bought it from a local farmer who lives in Oregon or the Caribbean, the clay probably belongs to an indigenous group, and is only available for purchase because the colonial gov'ts took the land and its resources away from the indigenous group.

You clearly don't bother reading what is written here. That's not what Libertarians think.

I can understand the confusion. On the one hand, your position should be clearly in support of indigenous people, but since you don't actually ever say anything abut indigenous rights, there is no confirmation of this logical deduction.

[Phred]

I will point out that you have not been able to provide a post that would prove otherwise…

Because I refuse to let someone with faulty memory dictate the terms of the discussion. I'm not going to re-post and re-post and re-post and re-post things we both know you have seen just so you can get your jollies running me around like a puppet. Your "debating" tactics are beneath contempt. You know you can't win your points through reasoned discourse so you instead attempt to haul the discussion off course with irrelevancies. The number of times I - Phred - have posted threads dealing with the rights of individuals is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the UN has invented pseudo-"rights".

In this thread, we have had two major discussions: "are property rights negative rights or objective?" and "what good are regulations"? Both of these topics are things the RWLs brought up.

And neither of those things are exclusively tied to the economic arena. My jeans are my property and I have the right to defend them from those who would seize them against my will, yet I have no intention of profiting from them. I don't run a clothing store. Same with regulations - the government's decision to not allow me to obtain raw milk from my local farmer (or from anyone, actually) has nothing to do with my economic well-being.

In other words, you are agreeing that you seem to focus only on the economic rights of these people. You do not discuss their other rights.

Fuck me but you are one dishonest "debater". How hard is it to grasp that to me individual rights are individual rights; that I don't give a flying fuck whose rights are being violated? Demographics are irrelevant to rights. You are the one who is obsessed with identity politics, not me. The fact that not everyone else in the world posts with the same frequency as you do about indigenous people and their hardships doesn't mean that everyone else in the world believes indigenous people have no rights, it just means they're not as obsessed with the subject as you are.

I'd post links to some of my posts in the thread about the Narwhal harvest where I state very plainly that government departmental regulations regarding the Narwhal harvest are a clear violation of the rights of Canada's First Nations population, but you'd say that I wasn't really condemning a violation of the rights of indigenous people, but was instead attacking government regulations. With you it's always "heads I win, tails you lose". Go troll someone else. Your infantile tactics are ludicrously transparent and wearing in the extreme, but then, that's your only "debating" tactic -- "victory" through sheer exhaustion of your opponent's patience.

Communities have rights because they have historically been able to claim and defend those rights. These rights are defined and created in the same way as individual rights: through a process of consensus among those who have the power to decide these rights.

Define "rights" as used in the above "argument". You seem to be arguing not in favour of "rights" as rational people define them - freedom to act - but of rights as "goodies". Communities cannot have rights because communities can't act.

Please note that you have not constructed a rational progression from first principles showing how communities cannot attain rights.

Done, above. Communuties cannot have rights because communities cannot act.

This is a semantic discussion about the definition of the word "rights".

Can you please explain why your definition is more logical than the one the rest of the world uses?

"Lefties" =/= "The rest of the world".

Actually, I do, as a Canadian.

Actually, as a Canadian, you don't. If you live in Ontario, a Canadian province, the government will pay for some but by no means all of what you require to keep you alive.

You may disagree with most of the rest of the world about how the word "right" is used here…

Again, "Lefties" is not a synonym for "the rest of the world".

...but the vast majority of the world would agree that Canadians do enjoy a right to necessary health care that is free at point of use.

A privilege that can be rescinded or altered at any time is not a right.

By asking you to sign a contract, I assume.

Note the key term "ask".

It seems that you are saying that communities have whatever rights they are able to enforce.

I'm saying communities have no rights.

Why don't animals enjoy human rights?

Because they aren't humans, duh.

The fish you caught with your bare hands. We agree that the bear who does the same thing has no property right to the fish because the bear lacks a human mind, right?

Eran has gone into this in scrupulous and unassailable detail in a thread that actually deals with the issue of animal "rights". You have been given the link to that thread. Go there and post in it if you want to talk about inter-species "rights". When the UN decides to add a clause to its Declaration of Universal Human Rights outlining what rights the UN in its infinite wisdom believes animals possess, then we can perhaps discuss it in this thread. Until then, stick to the topic or leave this thread.

That clay belongs to someone.

Yes. It belongs to me now.

If you bought it from a local farmer who lives in Oregon or the Caribbean, the clay probably belongs to an indigenous group…

There are no indigenous people where I live, but when there were, some of the indigenous people living here traded clay to other indigenous people living here, just as last week a farmer living here traded some clay to me. Are you saying those indigenous people had no right to participate in such trades half a century ago? Why did they not?

I can understand the confusion. On the one hand, your position should be clearly in support of indigenous people, but since you don't actually ever say anything abut indigenous rights, there is no confirmation of this logical deduction.

That's because there is no such thing as indigenous rights. There are only individual rights. I have all the same rights an Inuvialuk living in Tuktoyaktuk has. By supporting individual rights I am necessarily supporting indigenous rights and women's rights and gay rights and black rights. An indigenous fisherman who noodled himself a fish has a right to that fish. It's his property. An indigenous woman who threw and fired a clay pro has a right to that pot. It's her property.

How hard is that to understand?


Phred