why is it called Chapo Trap House? They could have just called it "Ironic Nonsense Podcast", but maybe that would be a little too on the nose.

Drug reference = funi

now do women

@RIP Skelly

Spiteful mutants are parasites therefore they don’t have rights

no one has rights

YES

Look at me

***I am the Parasite Now***

~
Well Intentioned Reactionary: "I want to make a prosperous and productive society."

*Accidently Invents Consumerism*

https://youtu.be/00xuN8Tbnig

>no one has rights
Why? @Skellington

You have rights to that which you can defend

You can talk about natural law and such but de facto human might not human right prevail

That is already presupposing that rights don't exist, and that in fact no moral law of any kind is real.

certainly the modern idea of rights is fake and gay because "human rights" is basically just a stand in for liberal values

I think this idea comes from stretching the analogy of natural and positive law too far. They are alike in that they both prescribe or prohibit certain courses of conduct, but different in that the former is either enacted by God or stems from the nature of things (or both, that would be my position). We can say that a right under the positive law ceases to exist when it is enforced, but the reason for that is that when the state gives you a right and then consistently infringes against it, it enters a performative contradiction, and thus the right can be said not to exist. With the natural law, this same argument doesn't work.

Although it might also come from the is-ought-fallacy(-fallacy), but I doubt people here subscribe to Humes idea, as it vitiates all moral discourse.

Ok. I believe in natural law and Gods commandments. But those laws won't be enacted in reality without the power and will to enact it

You can talk about property rights and homesteading but in America the white settler's took the land for themselves. Of course you could argue that the Indians didn't do much productive with the land but still. The point is that all those tribes are dead now and amerimdian culture is dead.

Well shit

Hello fellow reactioniggers

I'm new

They could not defend their claims

@ManDefault36hi

Hey @Skellington

The problem about rights is that people need to understand they need a power structure to enforce them and that if you have rights you must also have a duty

@AH-64 The issue with rights is that no one can give an intellectually honest account of what they are without delving into circular or emotive reasoning.

Even the appeal to Divine Law is dishonest. Rights tend to be treated as a declarative fact, whereas Divine Law is, by its nature, an imperative.

But furthermore: what is a right? What is its concise definition? What makes it different from a privilege?

If it is a social contract as that one American jurist suggested, then I can choose to not be a part of it, no? If that is the case, then there are no universal rights, merely social mores in specific contexts. And if that's true, they are also subject to change by authority, who directs/precedes all societal change.

>Even the appeal to Divine Law is dishonest. Rights tend to be treated as a declarative fact, whereas Divine Law is, by its nature, an imperative.
The Divine Law is an imperative, but insofar as that imperative is directed against potential aggressors against someone for the purpose of protecting that person, we can also speak of a right conferred on that person. To deny this is to engage in nothing more than word games. If the divine will is for someone not to be aggressed against, then what do you call this but a right?

>But furthermore: what is a right? What is its concise definition? What makes it different from a privilege?
The most concise definition I found would be "moral or legal entitlement", which is clear enough for me. To differentiate "right" from "privilege" is not necessary. Originally, both may have meant essentially the same thing, but with "right" having germanic and "privilege" latin roots. Nowadays, the two are different, but as everyday moral discourse is a terminological and logical mess anyway, that should be of no concern to us. Be all that as it may, this is, once again, so much riding on definitions and semantics, and it really reminds me of analytical philosophy.

>If it is a social contract as that one American jurist suggested, then I can choose to not be a part of it, no? If that is the case, then there are no universal rights, merely social mores in specific contexts. And if that's true, they are also subject to change by authority, who directs/precedes all societal change.
About this: Yes, that would be correct, but I don't subscribe to that theory. I don't know anyone who does, it used to be statists who invoked the social contract theories but they stopped doing that, for some reason. At least I don't see it often anymore.

Lastly, about this:
>The issue with rights is that no one can give an intellectually honest account of what they are without delving into circular or emotive reasoning.
I really don't see how that holds. Thomism derives them mainly from human nature, our moral agency, and the concept of finality. Hoppe derived them through argumentation ethics. Rothbard mixed both approaches. You can find their approaches convincing or not, but I don't see how they're circular or emotive (especially the latter, Thomism in particular is very dry). If you have anglo-philosophers in mind, men like Locke, then you may have a point, I do not remember them logically deriving their theory of rights.
@A B S O L U T I S T

> The Divine Law is an imperative, but insofar as that imperative is directed against potential aggressors against someone for the purpose of protecting that person, we can also speak of a right conferred on that person. To deny this is to engage in nothing more than word games. If the divine will is for someone not to be aggressed against, then what do you call this but a right?

I wouldn't call it a word game. Perhaps I'm arguing against the post-Lockean sense of the term, but placing a limiter on someone else doesn't directly imply, to me at least, an inherent quality on the person the limitation benefits. God commands you not to kill, but I wouldn't say that means you have a right not to be killed, but rather a commandment not to kill. It's a subtle but important difference.

> The most concise definition I found would be "moral or legal entitlement", which is clear enough for me. To differentiate "right" from "privilege" is not necessary. Originally, both may have meant essentially the same thing, but with "right" having germanic and "privilege" latin roots. Nowadays, the two are different, but as everyday moral discourse is a terminological and logical mess anyway, that should be of no concern to us. Be all that as it may, this is, once again, so much riding on definitions and semantics, and it really reminds me of analytical philosophy.
@AH-64

I again I think perhaps I'm arguing against the Liberal concept of a right as this "self-evident" thing that humans universally possess. The conception you're arguing from- I think-contains the possibility that it can be revoked and that implies it is contingent on the recognition of Power. The reason I differentiate "right" from a "privilege" is to avoid the linguistic baggage of Locke and the Constitution.

@AH-64 Hmmm you're a rothbardian?

I'm interested in your opinion on the Thomistic account of rights

You seemed to have called it "dry" and I'm curious why that is