Saturday, February 26, 2011

More Laci on Rights

One of the more bizarre comments that medieval peasants did have rights, the fact that they did not know about these rights and were unable to exercise them did not matter, the right existed.

The problem with that is that is it seems an absurdity. The point of a right is to be able to exercise that right, The fact that a right is claimed, or even exists, which is unable to be exercised makes it irrelevant.

For example, Dred Scott v. Sandford pointed out that slaves were property and were unable to exercise rights. In fact, slavery is the big bugaboo in the inalienable right argument: after all, can someone consent to be a slave?
I wonder how the gun spinners will respond to this one. I know they can, so let's hear it, boys. Just because you say you need certain inanimate objects in order to do proper self-defense, does that make it so?

Please leave a comment.


  1. Rights can be (and routinely are, and routinely have been, throughout the entirety of history) illegitimately denied, trampled, violated, and the exercise of said rights thus prevented. That doesn't mean that the rights don't exist. If that were the case--if a right ceased to exist, just as soon as someone successfully violated it, the entire concept of rights is made meaningless, beyond the old "might makes right" paradigm.

    Just as laws don't cease to exist, just because they are violated, rights--even those that are routinely denied--still exist.

  2. I was the one that commented over on Laci's blog that medieval peasants did have rights and just didn't know it yet.

    Laci deleted all comments on that posting and insulted me, calling me ignorant and unintelligent.

    The point of a right is NOT that we are ALLOWED to exercise it, but that IF we are not allowed to, then we are not free.

    It does come down to a matter of belief whether certain rights exist or not. The "Right of return" for Palestinians from the UN that Laci keeps mentioning doesn't sound like an actual unalienable right to me, but more like a political "right."

    Our unalienable Rights cannot be forced upon people, and they cannot infringe upon the rights of others. I disagree that suicide is illegal, as that is a MORAL belief being pushed onto someone to prohibit their ability to waive that right.

    We also have the right of self defense, if someone unjustly or criminally tries to take our life (or physical safety) from us by force. Since humans have the ability to use tools and weapons, it seems natural to me that that extends our right for self defense to include using tools for self defense.

    Doesn't that make logical sense? If not, what reasoning is behind excluding tools from the right of self-defense?


  3. "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

    -- Mahatma Gandhi

  4. Orygunner said, "Laci deleted all comments on that posting and insulted me, calling me ignorant and unintelligent."

    I've already mentioned to Laci that I don't find you like that. I think there was some misunderstanding. Maybe Laci confused you with Zorroy.