Pay for privacy

[PRB]

Says the most fundamental and obvious logic. Communication is, if nothing else, essential to life itself. Were I to strip you of all means of communication, you would likely be dead in a week, perhaps two if you happened to be particularly strong. If you do not see that which is plainly obvious, then there is nothing more I can do for you.

I'd like to see what you mean by stripping all means of communication. We got somebody here who said he can last longer than 2 weeks without drinking water. Change the word communication to "health care" and you just help a liberal make his entitlement argument. Go ahead, tell me why you're right and he's wrong.

That aside, it is a right simply because people wish it. There is no requirement of necessity in order to distill any given consideration into a right.

So sex and money are rights because people wish it???

In this case, and to be very specific, a right is a claim - a just claim - to whatever it is that is claimed. All rights imply the right to the means of exercise. My right to self defense directly and unarguably implies my right to the means of exercising the primary right in question. If I possess the right to self-defense, it makes no sense whatsoever to assert that anyone holds the right to deny my access to the means of exercise, whether it be my hands, teeth, a stone, club, knife, gun, etc.

Don't forget nucular bombs.

You're saying a lot of nothing right now. So let me help you.

If a liberal were to make the case, everybody wishes to be healthy, healthcare is the means of being healthy, therefore not providing healthcare is a violation of a person's right to be healthy, how is he wrong ?

Such rights do not imply the obligation of others to provide the means of exercise to me, but only that I may obtain, keep, and make use of them as my morally valid actions pursuant to equally correct choices would allow. If I am able to manufacture my own firearm, I am centrally within my right to do so in order to provide myself with the means of self-defense. If I earn money validly, it is my right to provide myself with a firearm that is for sale by another. Contrariwise, I hold no authority to steal a gun or to demand that you, as a taxpayer, subsidize my acquisition of the means to defend my life and property.

Who and what decides what is "validly"? And yes, rights DOES mean an obligation for others not to violate. This is why it's illegal to stop you from driving or kill a person, because you have a right to live and a right to travel. Ron Paul specifically said there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Such a myth has already led to Roe vs Wade and Lawrence vs Texas.

[PRB]

What, pray tell, would be violating your rights in such cases?

Dude, you're the one delusional enough to say communication is a right, you have the problem of having to explain it. I don't. I believe communication isn't a right, so there's no violation.

To what or, more saliently, to whom would be pointing a finger to assign blame? The only thing that can VIOLATE your rights is another human being, if for no other reason than it is only another human being who is capable of recognizing them. A stone that falls from a mountain, crushing your skull, has no choice in the matter and therefore cannot be said to have violated you. The event is nothing more than an example of $#@! happening. Being born with some disability that gravely restricts your ability communicate (think "Helen Keller") is not a violation, but just another "$#@! happened" deal, assuming of course that the reason for the disability was not the result of the action of another human being, whether through negligence or malice.

Interesting, so if you can predict a criminals behavior to the point you can say he has no choice, he's no longer a violator and he's part of the "life isn't fair, $#@! happens, nobody is perfect" explanation and justification?

Speaking in the case of a person being born with a disability, does society owe this person supplemental means of communication to equalize his rights? Or is he on his own and sucks for him if he can't communicate to survive? Does the fact he has a right to live mean that the rest of us owe him all the means of maintaining his survival?

Bringing oneself to a remote location is an act of volition. You cannot violate yourself.

But you can give up your own right, and therefore relieve others from their obligation to save you, right? If I shoot you, can I say "it's your fault for not wearing a bullet proof vest"?

[PRB]

Once again, dead wrong. All means are indeed a right in accord with the provisos as stipulated above. To repeat: the right means the right to validly acquire as one's capabilities may allow. If you have no money, you may not steal a gun for protection, whether by direct action or through the proxy of the "government" through the expropriation of tax monies for that purpose.

Except I never accepted the premise that communications is a right. If it were, wouldn't we be violated the moment a person is allowed to monopolize and profit from it? Wouldnt and shouldn't we step back and say nobody should be allowed to sell communication means, rather than let them, and then use government to regulate them?

You seem to have a good idea in your head what IS or isn't a right, so care to list of what they are and which claims are not? How do you stop a liberal from claiming cable and smartphones are a right, and healthcare is a right, but you are justified in saying internet privacy is a right? Do tell. I'm not the one making these outrageous claims about how govenrment ought to protect people's imaginary rights.

[osan]

Except I never accepted the premise that communications is a right. If it were, wouldn't we be violated the moment a person is allowed to monopolize and profit from it? Wouldnt and shouldn't we step back and say nobody should be allowed to sell communication means, rather than let them, and then use government to regulate them?

You have ignored everything I have posited. You address nothing on a point by point basis, but rather respond with this wishy washy, vaporous tripe.

I have proven my points with valid and truthful logic. That either you cannot or will not see it is your problem. I am done with you. Claim victory if you wish. I could care less.

You seem to have a good idea in your head what IS or isn't a right, so care to list of what they are and which claims are not? How do you stop a liberal from claiming cable and smartphones are a right, and healthcare is a right, but you are justified in saying internet privacy is a right? Do tell. I'm not the one making these outrageous claims about how govenrment ought to protect people's imaginary rights.

Likewise, I have demonstrated this already. You fail to respond to a specific point, so there is nothing more I can do.

Have a nice day.

[PRB]

You have ignored everything I have posited.

No, I didn't. I addressed them. I started by saying communication isn't a right and you can't tell me why a liberal would be wrong if he changed the word communication to health and therefore used the same argument to advocate for socialized healthcare. I also pointed out that your claim you can't survive for 2 weeks without it is BS, if somebody can live longer without drinking water.

You address nothing on a point by point basis, but rather respond with this wishy washy, vaporous tripe.

That's to prevent you from Gish galloping. if your premise isn't established, why let you keep talking?

I have proven my points with valid and truthful logic. That either you cannot or will not see it is your problem. I am done with you. Claim victory if you wish. I could care less.

Luckily for you, I too don't care about victory, I care about being corrected. I don't accept your arguments and have asked specific questions for you to address.

Likewise, I have demonstrated this already. You fail to respond to a specific point, so there is nothing more I can do.

Have a nice day.

Repost if you have actually addressed this. I didn't see it or don't read it from what you wrote.

[Olaf]

Wow, PRB completely owned this thread. Great posts!

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Wow, PRB completely owned this thread. Great posts!

Seeing as how you both have negative rep bars--I'll just consider the source. LOL.

[DamianTV]

Would people in general be offended if instead of just accepting any idea, I tried to challenge the idea to understand it better before accepting or rejecting it?

[invisible]

Wow, PRB completely owned this thread. Great posts!

Fail. Epic fail. Perhaps one of, if not the biggest epic fail I've ever seen in the entire history of RPF. For posts such as these, we really do that need facepalm emoticon.