> [14:15] Thotsky: what do you mean by natural rights?

See answer above. Additional:
https://thebiggestpicture.net/img/MarkPassio-NaturalLawTransgressionsRight.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYHyxJigwzQml9l5NAibjXJ9FZUnahl4qde7Pjvq_wEhc1-uER

> 14:15] Thotsky: which omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient entity bestows upon us such natural rights?
You might name that Nature or God, whatever you like more. (not the "god" of the old testament)


> 14:16] Thotsky: if these rights were "natural", then 6 million Jews would not have been gassed
Wrong conclusion.

GG @liquidnight, you just advanced to level 2!

@Leiro レイロ For the following comments: you engage in deceptive rhetoric

Then why call it natural? All legal law codes require enforcement.

Yes, the way you derive it may be natural and may not be arbitrary

then again, they don't really matter if they cannot be enforced

i believe that rights are socially created, made by man's interaction with social beings and his material conditions

Ok there are so-called man-made laws (psychopathic archetype), but those are unimportant.
The Natural Laws are important.
http://wasserwandel.info/waw-passio5.JPG

```“Political [or individual] rights do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will be meet with the violent resistance of the populace...One compels respect from others when he knows how to defend his dignity as a human being...The people owe all the political rights and privileges which we enjoy today, in greater or lesser measure, not to the good will of their governments, but to their own strength

[Anarcho-syndicalism, pg 64]

```

also what's wrong with rights being constructs of the mind?

if everyone within an certain geographical area voluntarily agree to say, to ban private ownership of the means of production, with consent, then they are technically violating each other's and their own natural rights

most of human society before the existance of states didn't have "natural law", but they functioned based on community principles and operated well

so even if we break natural law, there is nothing wrong doing so, and again, you fail to mention enforcement

it's just another rule book everyone has to follow after the state has dissolved, we might not as well have anarchy then

> 14:27] Thotsky: also what's wrong with rights being constructs of the mind?
I told you before !
"There are so-called man-made laws (psychopathic archetype), but those are unimportant. The Natural Laws are important. "

Why are they important?

What makes them important?

China is not equality

It is the exact opposite

Fuck dengist policy

State capitalism is shit

What incentivises a person to follow natural law instead of creating laws which best suit themselves and the community?

> 14:29] Thotsky: so even if we break natural law, there is nothing wrong doing so,
Wrong. If you break them you will suffer consequences. And it is morally wrong.

> and again, you fail to mention enforcement
Wrong, I did mention enforcement ! Transgress my natural right, and I shoot you.

What consequences? As I said, say we ban private ownership of the means of production and everyone agrees to it. What repercussions do I face?

and why is it morally wrong if there's consent involved?

> [14:32] Thotsky: What incentivises a person to follow natural law of creating laws which best suit themselves and the community?

This is an contradiction !
One needs to have an exact depiction of what the **self** is, to evaluate this. You seem to not have that.

@Leiro レイロ I recommendo to you to listen to: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIEemKcy-4E
If you did not do that yet, I recommend that for sure.

that was a typo sorry, let me rephrase the question

GG @Leiro レイロ, you just advanced to level 3!

@Leiro レイロ You use communist terms, that does not motivate writing now. When you have understood the presentation, head back to me with questions.

What is the difference between a capitalist ruling class and a government ruling class @liquidnight

GG @Fuckers, you just advanced to level 2!

what are communist terms?

also this enforcement part requires that as long as society or humans exist, there must be natural law enforced everywhere. But I have described you a system where people voluntarily agreed to violate each others' natural laws. So it looks like with human action, anything is possible, even violating natural laws.

How is that an oxymoron? And why do I not have the exact depiction to evaluate this?

who determines what I do and don't have?

your statements are just full of cleverly worded statements which are there to manipulate the opposing party

like for example, "biomass entities"

> 4:36] Fuckers: What is the difference between a capitalist ruling class and a government ruling class
No significant difference. Only decorative differences.

> 14:40] Thotsky: like for example, "biomass entities"
That was only a descriptive terms. This is how government psychopaths see the cattle.

14:37] Thotsky: a system where people voluntarily agreed to violate each others' natural laws.

If they agree, we name it *contract*. Then it is not a violation.

However under current rulership (and no contract), it is a violation.

we are not talking about any government here so any reference to that term is plainly unnecessary

okay then it's a contract then. But we have violated each others natural laws. What will you do about it.

I don't really see a need for natural law, because most of the time communities when left alone make their own laws whereby the community members agree to abide by them

@Leiro レイロ I just told you: If they agree, we it is a contract, not a violation.

Whats your problem understanding that ?