Nothing I've said contradicts anything else I've said. We have rights and they are as immutable as gravity itself. We can't vote them away, give them away, sell them, buy them, or destroy them.
That being said, we also don't have to exercise them if we don't choose to. I have the right to walk across my property. Does this mean that I MUST walk across my property at all times? Of course not. We have the right to choose whether or not we are going to use a seatbelt, a helmet, or any other safety device. Nobody else on earth has any right to tell us one way or the other whether we must or must not use them. The legitimate purpose of the state is to protect people from others, but not to protect them from themselves. Not wearing a seatbelt does not endanger anyone other than the person consenting to be endangered, therefore the state has no legitimate authority in the matter. Natural rights are part of natural law have existed for all of time and only had to be "discovered" by mankind. Nothing has any right to protect me against my will or to harm me against my will. Everything I've said is consistant with libertarian principles, and with the static nature of natural law and natural rights. Nothing I've said contradicts anything else I've said. --- In [email protected], Deus Ex Machina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Any laws which attempt to tell people what they must or must not do > > with their own safety, own body, own life, etc. is not a valid law or > > an infringement. > > well hold on, on one hand you argue that natural rights are independent > from people and then on the other hand you are now arguing that you can > forgo your own rights by choice. > > if natural rights are independent from people then you cant possibly > give up your own rights to freedom from physical force even when that > force is your own doing. you cant give up something that is not yours. > > in other words you cant have your cake and eat it too. if the state is > there to protect peoples right and protect you from force. and "natural rights" are > independent from people then it has an obligation to protect you from your > own agression towards yourself, because you cant distance yourself from > your rights. just as it has an obligation to protect others from your agression. > > so which is it? are "natural rights" independent from people or not? > > Vic > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> AIDS in India: A "lurking bomb." Click and help stop AIDS now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/X6CDDD/lzNLAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
