[Potemkin]

Why state the obvious eh? They want to be True Believers.

And every piece of nonsense they come out with has to be ‘obvious’ or ‘self-evident’, so that everybody who disagrees with them must be doing so in bad faith, and not because, unlike the Libertarians, they have actually read David Hume.

[Tainari88]

And every piece of nonsense they come out with has to be ‘obvious’ or ‘self-evident’, so that everybody who disagrees with them must be doing so in bad faith, and not because, unlike the Libertarians, they have actually read David Hume.

@Puffer Fish states:

But if you throw out natural rights, you are stuck with moral relativism, where anything goes. This seems to be the dictum of the Left, any sacrifice is justified for the supposed better good of the collective.
For someone who is Libertarian, this is deeply problematic.

I say Potemkin, you solve these dilemmas about the Left and the Collective and how these rugged individualist Libertarian selfish bastards finally see the light if they just are forced to live in solitary confinement and not have a single contact with a human being other than themselves for a week. Have water and food dispensed by a machine and talk to only themselves for a week.

The nature of humanity is social. And having social contact. The health of the group is LIFE. Living on your own without another soul to share your life with is DEATH.

Naturally? You better put the best quality of life for the group. First. Above some weird anti-social selfish shit that is really about exclusivity and taking other people's freedoms away so some selfish bastard could live better and think himself above others.

That is the issue. The Left believes in Liberte, Fraternite, Egalite, and the Right believes in Selfish, Hoarding and Justifying being a sociopathic freak for money.

Have you noticed the argument is abuse by the collective of the individual. The problem is never some individuals who use the group to become wealthy, hoard the wealth, use the wealth for increasing individual influence, and denying rights to the least and vulnerable.

If you are moral in any sense? Using the sweat of the many to become abusive with the many in order for one or two out of millions to make enormous decisions because what? Libertarianism is about selfish shit. Anyone with half a brain can detect it.

[Puffer Fish]

It is confusing to you because you clearly did not read articles about natural rights versus positive rights. I found the terms during a quick Google search, since I do not read about legal stuff as much as I once did.

You bringing that up is confusing, because most people would think about positive rights versus negative rights.

If a terminology has two different meanings, you should clarify to avoid causing confusion.

[Rich]

And every piece of nonsense they come out with has to be ‘obvious’ or ‘self-evident’, so that everybody who disagrees with them must be doing so in bad faith, and not because, unlike the Libertarians, they have actually read David Hume.

OK so in attempt to be generous, while there is no such thing as natural law, there does seem to what might be described as natural moralism, natural narcisism, or the universal law of self entitlement. This I think is the psychological basis for natural rights.

Nearly everyone seems to think their entitled to own what they already control plus. Status Quo+.

Primitive tribes think they have a moral right to the hunting grounds they already control, perhaps with a piece of their neighbours hunting grounds.

A Medieval King thought he was morally entitled to sovereignty over the territory that he currently controlled, but possibly with some territory currently controlled by other monarchs.

A Medieval aristocrat believed he was morally entitled to at least his current position in the Feudal hierarchy (Note I'm not disputing Feudalism as a distinctive part of the Middle Ages societal superstructure, but I'll return to that matter another day), but possibly to an even higher position immorally occupied by someone else.

A "White" Woke professor supports reparations for slavery, but rather than thinking his salary should be cut to pay for this actually thinks he's entitled to a pay rise.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the gist. Libertarianism is just an attempt to justify the near universal human sentiment, that at the very least I'm entitled to what I already have, but probably a good deal more beside.

[MistyTiger]

You bringing that up is confusing, because most people would think about positive rights versus negative rights.

If a terminology has two different meanings, you should clarify to avoid causing confusion.

No. I had context. Natural rights are discussed in philosophy. Positive rights are applied by lawmakers in the legal field. Applied versus Discussed is a huge distinction. Action versus Talk. That was my point that you didn't grasp.

The fact that I didn't bring up negative rights should say something. That something is that it isn't worth discussing in my opinion.

[Agent Steel]

@Puffer Fish By definition, if rights are granted to us by God, then they are not "natural rights". God is of the SUPER-natural.

Natural rights would be those that arise purely by nature.

[paeng]

I think the founding of the U.S. is based on codifying natural rights.