Hello Swami. Nice post. One critical idea you overlooked and left out is a definition of a "Right". Since "Rights" cannot be detected or observed and there are no gods or magic and abstractions are mental actions that result in identification of common characteristics shared by two or more entities, I therefore think you're fallacy is that of equating "Rights" with freedom of actions to perform various tasks or configure one's life according to a chosen standard of behavior. Consider, if Robinson Caruso were alone on the island, there'd be nobody to interfere with his freedom to gather coconuts. Once Friday arrived, however, there would be need for Caruso to make a deal with Friday to agree to allow each other to gather coconuts or to share their take. The deal or agreement is logically identifiable, therefore, as the essential of the concept of "Right" and can thus be used as a definition properly assigned symbolic representation by the term "Right".

Under this concept "Rights" can be understood as deals made by the members of a Nation that formed the Country and established a government to serve the interests of the Country and protect the freedoms of actions of the members of the Nation they need in order to live and live lives worth living. Contrast this with the magical mystery version of "Rights" you attempted to defend without any rational argument. A logical sequence of ideas that are genetically dependent upon preceding inferences converging on a substantively understood concept is more persuasive than a apophatic diatribe.

These points in no sense are intended to convey a sense of

pejorative innuendo or derogatory defamation toward you or your thinking. I very much want to maintain the protections of my freedoms of actions and think that cannot be accomplished by mere insistence on a magical mystical interpretation of the term "Right". Hence I propose a rational understanding of the concept.

Thanks for posting and providing food for thought.

Happy Labor Day

~~~

Hello reader,

You speak as someone who fears physical exertion or physical confrontation.

You seem to have missed the portion of the title of the post where I specifically said, my freedoms are not up for debate.

You seem to have missed the portion of my post where I spoke of the use of force.

Both you and reader Mike assume that I assumed merely speaking these words will do the trick. Although reader Mike does reflect his awareness of physical confrontation when he mentions the odds.

Of course more is required. That is obvious when one considers the present situation, whereby the constitution has not maintained our freedoms. Its just a god damn piece of paper, right?

I specifically avoided using the word "right" to refer to my freedoms.

I do not believe my numerous and infinite freedoms should be narrowly defined in a deal with other human beings. Lawyers love shit like that, don't they?

Nothing makes it easier to manipulate the perception of the population, than changing the definition of commonly used words in a revised statute.

Lawyers look for an edge to whittle away at, slowly, over time.

No thanks.

Like I said, my freedoms are not up for debate. Besides, the constitution deal hasn't worked out to well, has it?

Freedoms most certainly can be detected and observed. Look at this response to you. It is evidence of my freedom of expression/speech.

"I therefore think you're fallacy is that of equating "Rights" with freedom of actions to perform various tasks or configure one's life according to a chosen standard of behavior"

That was an absurd statement. My freedoms obviously include that. The word freedom, and the context that people use the word "right", is exactly to do whatever the hell I want to, whenever the hell I want to, however the hell I want to.

There would be no need to make a deal with Friday. If Friday interfered with Caruso, then Caruso can defend himself physically. This is stupidly obvious, and indicates magical thinking on your part. As if a deal will prevent abusive behavior, sort of like how people think the constitution saves people by its mere existence. Instead its a piece of paper supposedly defining the limits of government, which the people who hold the offices defined by said piece of paper, ignore daily.

The idea of using symbolic representations is similar to having state reps to carry the will of the populations into federal government discussions. Pure crap! A waste of time!

The people can interact directly with each other. The people speak with each other directly. The people can physically beat the shit out of each other directly. The people don't need a middle man piece of shit parasitical representative, nor do they need parasitical law enforcement officers. They can settle their differences in the streets. Its the pencil pushers, bean counters, lying manipulative fragile ass-hats, that push shit like you are describing, that need deals, and definitions to be manipulated, and governmental constructs, to get others to bend their will.

Governments do not serve the people, nor do they protect the freedoms of the people, nor do they protect the property of the people. That is pure bullshit. And so is your "argument". You are the one relying on mysterious magical bullshit.

Have a wonderful day..