reply to post by Dragoon01
I think we're just coming at it from two different directions. I'm trying to find the philosophical basis. Though I may be considered a nihilist,
and just maybe an atheist, this is the basis I'm seeing:
Stated very simply: you're born with nothing among a multitude of independent entities. You gather things around you, and things gather around you,
and then you go. (Let's forget for now the question of what comes after) Nothing in the natural order of things tells me that I "own" anything,
other than my body. Everything is naturally and independently it's own existence. I may have things nearby and use those things, but in nature, I
believe, there is no "ownership." What would that even mean "naturally". Does a tree really care if you covet and pamper a rock? Does the rock?
What does "private" property even mean in nature? Everything, including us, always is and always will be nature's dominion.
When you are alone in nature you only use and discard things (much as we do now). But once another human comes along only then does the question of
"ownership" come up. But once that other human comes along, you have a society (i.e. a group of people who choose to live together under agreed upon
circumstances). If that second person does not agree with your definition of "ownership", you most likely would then have a warring society (i.e. a
group of people who choose to live together under the agreed circumstance of not agreeing). Except, of course, if they choose to separate and isolate
themselves from each other, but then they would not be "living together."
So to me I can see LIFE as a natural right, as without it there are no more questions, no problems, no anything. (Or rather, maybe it's the ultimate
LIBERTY I can see because in any situation an individual always has multiple options, whether it's to fight, flee, cry, squeal, ignore or succumb.
THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS I have reservations, just in that I considered "happiness" to be a temporary emotion. But for lack of a better word, I'll
accept "happiness." So, we are cognizant entities aware of ourselves, our bodies and our surroundings. And it does seem to be natural that we have a
sense of the past, present and future and we recognize the difference. And we also have a natural ability to imagine non existent things, including
how things "ought" to be. So it's reasonable to believe we naturally work towards what we think how things "ought" to be, thus in the end making
THE RIGHT TO DEFEND ONESELF I see based upon the three above: we are LIFE, we have LIBERTY to react, and we think we "ought" to be "happy".
But the RIGHT TO PROPERTY... I don't see it in the natural order of things, nor do I see the philosophical basis of it. But once a society is
But maybe this should be in the Philosophy and Metaphysics section of the site... I don't know, as I could have sworn this thread was originally in
the General Conspiracies section but now it's in Rants. So maybe I'm just ranting.