[Radar]

Originally Posted by Juniper

Very well. In that case, on what basis would you determine what is NOT someone's right?

I believe I've been very clear on this matter, but I'll say it again.

We have the right to do ANYTHING we was as long as our actions do not physically harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of a non-consenting other.

Governments are here to defend us from being harmed by others, but not to protect us from harming ourselves.

If your actions initiate force or the threat of force (coercion) to make other people act a certain way, you are stepping beyond your rights.

If you make a law that says people must stop at red lights, you are defending safety. Since we have a right to defend ourselves, we may grant this power to government. If you make a law that says people must wear helmets when riding a motorcycle, you are using coercion (the threat that men with guns will show up and take away your freedom) to force someone else to do something against their will even though if they weren't doing it, it would not harm, endanger, or violate the person, property, or rights of non-consenting others.

If you make a law against rape, you are defending non-consenting people against the aggression of others. If you make a law that says someone may not offer sexual services for money, you are saying that you have a more of a claim to their body than they have for themselves and that you get to make decisions over their body against their will. You are trying to defend them against their own decisions.

This is a very clear and easy way to determine what is or is not a right.

I like to use the "If I were on an island" test.

If I were on an island with other people and no laws or government, would I have a right to do this?

For instance, if I were on an island that has people on it but no laws or government, would I have the right to prevent a woman from getting an abortion? Of course not. It is her own body and I have no say over her body or its contents. I therefore could not grant this power to government, and neither could a million of me, or a billion of me. Zero times a billion is still zero.


If I were on an island that has people on it but no laws or government, and someone tried to steal the vegetables I was growing, would I have the right to use force to stop them? Yes, I would because I'd be using defensive force, not aggressive force. If my neighbors and I agree to band together to defend against a gang of thugs, are we within our rights? Yes, because we are defending. We aren't trying to use force against other people to make them do something against their will.

Originally Posted by Juniper

Call me whatever you will, but don't you dare call me lazy. I've already read most of what you posted. As I said before, while I agree they were brilliant philosophers, they are not imprimatur. Theories. Opinions. Not proof.

These people prepared well-reasoned arguments about why rights exist. I have heard nothing equally intelligent to the contrary.

In the end it comes down to this.

You either believe we are born with rights and we own ourselves, or you think we have no rights, and we are the property of someone else or a group of someone else.