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.
This is such an idiotic take. They aren’t a fiction. Sure, there isn’t some sort of magical guarantee you have them, but that doesn’t make the term or concept less useful.
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.
no. I believe they don’t exist, and the fact of infringement proves that. they are a fiction, and one that creates barriers to liberty.
This is such an idiotic take. They aren’t a fiction. Sure, there isn’t some sort of magical guarantee you have them, but that doesn’t make the term or concept less useful.
they are literally made up. there is no empirical evidence of their existence.
What in the solipsism am I reading right now. Multiple countries and international groups have things called rights. They exist.