Oddbean

Rights come from the individual, and not the state. The state is nothing but a monopoly on violence. And we as a society tolerate this, to (in theory) stop other violence Therefore, They may voluntarily choose to seek the protection of the state from violence. But, there has to be an opt out.

yeah homeboy wasn't really trying to make a case they were from the state. He's not quite sure of his position i think. basically i agree with you but wondering "rights come from the individual" are those specific rights everyone is born with? or do I have to decide on them myself and put them out there?

For life and liberty, the individual has rights no matter what. You can't give it up. You can only change who is enforcing it. For property, you have to put in work, to make it your's. If it's for example uninhabited land.

Oh yeah? where do those rights you have "no matter what" come from? "Life" probably has pretty general agreement. Most people agree they should be allowed to exist. "Liberty"? (whatever *that is) Not so much.

Morality is objective, as there would be no purpose in it if it was subjective. You could kill and say "to me it felt right" Morality is a survival mechanism, as we can't survive without basic rules. Morality dictates you can't kill or enslave others (which is how I'm defining liberty here) Therefore, An individual's unconditional objective rights are derived morality, which is an emotional experience in the human mind, that should be governed by objective rules, derived from reason. This could be also be phrased, Rights come from mankind's ability to reason.

Yea at least thats the only way that "natural rights" make any sense. But its also extremely vague on details which is fine. Agreeing exactly what the morals are, and how to derive rights from them, is very murky and fraught with disagreement. Large parts of the world do not derive "freedom of speech" from "you cant kill or enslave others" for example. Which I why I've been arguing for pragmatic rights, those you can actually assert and are generally agreed upon socially. Although I agree morality is a survival mechanism and tends to be pretty consistent across time and cultures.

Essentially, that rights are what you can exercise in a social context. Any rando can imagine a right or privilege. But if you can't actually exercise it, so what? Likewise society can decide a existent right is no longer is valid. (not the state, social consensus at whatever level) In either situation the individual's option is to go somewhere they can *exercise the rights they hold. Individuals generally will not continuously assert rights in contexts that result in social exclusion. 99% of the time they either conform or move to a different social context that agrees with them. So rights aren't static, except in a dogmatic sense. They result from individuals asserting them en masse.

here homeboy took your argument through to the end nostr:nevent1qqs2dn4enc9amavqvjmlhrhczwe5zl0xpn8h6zfwxp8vzhngauaw4rcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsyg9v8a40u96e8asczpgnmty6re2yapaee6gmylfhhz8vtra64yq54gpsgqqqqqqs0dpfjc