Replies

Rational thought, and the ablity to act upon it, is the origin of man's rights... Rationality itself 'explains' the source for all practical purposes.

I'm not buying it. This is merely an assertion. A right requires a correlated obligation. If you have the "right" not to be assaulted, then I have the correlated obligation not to assault you. But if I disagree -- where then is your right? It only exists then upon being enforced. It is enforced either by God, or by a social group. And if the latter it is not really a right, merely a "law", a social agreement. There is nothing inherent about it.

A right must be enforceable -- either by a group (e.g. a government) or by God. Period. There is no other source available for the "right" to come from. Only if a right is granted by God can it be considered "inherent" or "inalienable". A right granted by a State is neither inherent nor inalienable.

A right that is not enforced, either by God or by a social group, is not a right. It is merely hot air.

Rational thought, and the ablity to act upon it, is the origin of man's rights.
Rationality itself 'explains' the source for all practical purposes.
You are free to disagree, but disagreeing violently makes for messy politics.

I'm not buying it. This is merely an assertion. A right requires a correlated obligation. If you have the "right" not to be assaulted, then I have the correlated obligation not to assault you.

Its not an 'obligation', it's in your rational self interest not to assault me. Lest I assault you, and it gets messy.

But if I disagree -- where then is your right? It only exists then upon being enforced.

Nope, it exists because we [rationally] do not want to be assaulted. So we selfishly agree not to assault each other, or others, and codify that agreement into our law. Thus our selfish individual non-assault right exists whether or not it is violated/enforced.

It is enforced either by God, or by a social group. And if the latter it is not really a right, merely a "law", a social agreement. There is nothing inherent about it.

You are simply denying an inherant urge to defend ourselves. We fight to do so, individually, constantly.
So of course we make social agreements to do so.

A right must be enforceable -- either by a group (e.g. a government) or by God. Period.

Dogma. The individual defends himself most of the time.

There is no other source available for the "right" to come from. Only if a right is granted by God can it be considered "inherent" or "inalienable". A right granted by a State is neither inherent nor inalienable. A right that is not enforced, either by God or by a social group, is not a right. It is merely hot air.

The 'hot air' is coming off your pulpit.

Why you fight against the concept of having your own inalienable rights is best left to speculations by professionals.