How can you have a society where everyone is equal and free if you don’t define the right of individuals to be equal and free? There are always people and organizations who would give preference to their tribe, whether for well-intentioned or nefarious reasons.
How can you have a society where everyone is equal and free if you don’t define the right of individuals to be equal and free
it seems pretty obvious that we can just observe whether everybody is equal and free, and if somebody is preventing somebody else from being equal or free, tell them to knock it off.
no, “rights” are an enlightenment era fiction created by people who were supposedly interested in empiricism, but never bothered to question whether rights exist.
Rights are things that as a society we agree people should be allowed to do. And if they’re prevented from doing them, we tell the people preventing them to knock it off.
When people are told to change their behavior, sometimes their response is just to say fuck off. How could we possibly expect compliance without codifying what they should comply with? How would you deal with conflicting values? As much as governments are the single largest cause of mass murders and deaths, this is the one thing they are good for: defining parameters.
What’s a just society?
A fantasy apparently.
I define it as one where everyone is equal and free. opinions may vary though.
How can you have a society where everyone is equal and free if you don’t define the right of individuals to be equal and free? There are always people and organizations who would give preference to their tribe, whether for well-intentioned or nefarious reasons.
you can’t prove this
Has there ever been anywhere in recorded human history where this wasn’t true?
this question is not proof.
it seems pretty obvious that we can just observe whether everybody is equal and free, and if somebody is preventing somebody else from being equal or free, tell them to knock it off.
That’s what rights are.
no, “rights” are an enlightenment era fiction created by people who were supposedly interested in empiricism, but never bothered to question whether rights exist.
Rights are things that as a society we agree people should be allowed to do. And if they’re prevented from doing them, we tell the people preventing them to knock it off.
but we don’t agree. the government infringes on so-called inalienable rights all the time. often without repercussion.
So you agree that you believe in what everyone else calls rights, just that governments aren’t perfect. Which nobody said they were.
When people are told to change their behavior, sometimes their response is just to say fuck off. How could we possibly expect compliance without codifying what they should comply with? How would you deal with conflicting values? As much as governments are the single largest cause of mass murders and deaths, this is the one thing they are good for: defining parameters.
none of this necessitates rights
Why do you want that?
it sounds nice to me
Ok, then why does that sound nice? You gotta see where I’m going with this.
I don’t care for your interrogative style. say what you want.
I want you to understand how your concept of a just society ultimately depends on natural rights, whether or not we call them rights.
Why do you want everyone to be equal and free, why would that be nice? Why should we care?
no, it doesn’t.
Yes it does
say what you want to say. i don’t care for your interrogative style.
I am literally asking, and just explained why.