Message from @versterven
Discord ID: 435801100470452225
There’s a big difference
but your idea of rights that exist outside of law seems so arbitrary
why do you have some sort of right, existing outside of laws, to excercise power over things
and what is the character of this right and why
What's the diffrence between giving you a couch and protecting a couch you already have from being stolen?
please eleborate cause i cant tell if my rights are given to me or are just not being taken away
like do you believe you have some sort of natural right that transcends law to own land?
yes
It's not natural, it's a principal. It's simply the most practical and efficent to run a society
wait so do you think land ownership is different from other kinds of ownership or do you think this for all forms of ownership
Why do you think it should be diffrent?
Expecting logic from a commie
Have fun wasting your time
so is your argument that these "rights" that transcend law are just principles that are the most efficient way to run a society
@Fulcrum010 yep
They don't "transcend" law. The reason laws exist in the first place in to protect these rights
but what is the basis for these rights
Again, rights are just concept we agreed that everyone deserves. Basically any form of freedom that doesn't hurt anyone else
dae workers seize the means of production
Rights are things we are born with and government is there to protect
so what makes the concept of us agreeing that the ability to own land is a right different from us agreeing to the right for employees to excercise workplace democracy
one is theft
circular logic
The company is privately owned. If the ones who owns it wants to run it as a democracy, I have no objections
yeah but what if we don't agree that firms should be privately owned
cry harder then
They will be privately owned, get over it
If it already belongs to someone, the state has no authority to take it away. That's why
why
The one who owns it either built it himself or bought it
we don't agree that owning firms is a right
Well it is
but you just said that rights are a concept we agreed everyone deserves
We agreed on it as a society. Just because one individual disagrees doesn't make the concept null. And there are really good reason for the existence of that right
yeah but i'm saying what if we didn't agree
is it no longer a right
True. If we all agree that right of ownership isn't a thing than it's not. But that also means you don't get to own the phone or computer you are corrently using