Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 23
rd, 2024 at 2:15pm:
Frank wrote on Mar 23
rd, 2024 at 11:46am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 20
th, 2024 at 12:56pm:
Frank wrote on Mar 20
th, 2024 at 12:30pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 20
th, 2024 at 12:17pm:
My extensive reply to Frank explains WHY I believe rule of law designed to achieve shared prosperity and security is necessary, not "natural individual rights".
ONLY free individuals, coming together freely, can create laws that they all, individually and together, accept and submit to.
Nonsense; Hammurabi created the first written laws (c. 1750BC) codifying "justice", everyone accepted and submitted.
Quote: THey will be equal before such laws, in defending their individual rights - there aren't any other - and surrendering to the judgemeent of such laws.
More nonsense; indivdual rights aren't the same as universal rights. eg article 23, UNUDHR: "everyone has a right to above-poverty employment".
Who is "everyone" if not individuals??
At least he's come to the point of accepting 'individual rights' - which, sadly for his philosophy, also incorporate all basic human rights....
No, I understand "individual rights" are no more than
desires of naturally self-interested, competitive individuals.
The mistake of classical liberalism is to elevate these desires to the status of "natural individual rights".
Obviously naturally competitive and self-interested individuals must submit to rule of law to avoid chaos.
The question is what is the law designed to achieve: common prosperity, or individual riches at the expense of less competitve individuals.
Ie, how is power manifested in the community?
Quote: and that without a solid (gasps) foundation of both operating together, there is no valid set of rights...
Rights can only exist in law, the goal of law is the question.
Quote:Now then - about my right to enjoy National Parks held in trust for the entirety of the people by government bodies, and not up for sale to anyone for any price?
We agree.....