that's not really what I meant and you know it

I pointed out the difference of "equalty" vs. equal granting rights to all others.
There is a problem in society (visible in china) to mold the biomass into *equal* units.

as I said, I don't understand your concept of rights

who "grants" rights? who's this arbiter who gets to decide what rights people should get?

also no that isn't what I meant by equality, we are not really talking about metaphysics

Ooh deep shyiet here

we are talking materially

I don't understand what you mean by "molding biomass into equal units"

the language used sounds queer

I mean not so much *to grant* but more *to leave* the natural rights to the others.

what natural rights?

you mean deontological ethics?

> 14:04] Thotsky: I don't understand what you mean by "molding biomass into equal units"

Biomass entities ("humans") are selected by government entities, and fitted into equal living conditions, and being subjected under introctrination to make them equal.


I am not sure about your "deontological ethics". Maybe there is no such expression.

Natural Rights ~== everything not doing harm to others.

So where in this do the rights of slaves fit?

slave is a not-rightful condition. bad premise, no answer.

Not rightful condition?

it's unnecessary for you to use such terms, but okay lol.

Firstly, there are no "biomass entities" selected by "government entities" and put into "equal living conditions", jesus christ. Given that the means of production are used to satisfy the needs of the workers instead of profit maximisation, there really is no incentive to deliver differing standards in regards to employment and education, they would be utilised for the well being of the community, so therefore equality of opportunity would be guaranteed for all.

GG @Leiro レイロ, you just advanced to level 2!

I don't believe in your natural rights, I'm a moral nihilist and I do not endorse such asinine nonsense.

also why can't slavery be a natural right? John Locke viewed slavery to be a natural right.

I have the natural rights, independent of you believing in them.
If you transgress them, I shoot you. No problem with that !

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/06/locke-treatise-slavery-private-property/

what do you mean by natural rights?

which omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient entity bestows upon us such natural rights?

if these rights were "natural", then 6 million Jews would not have been gassed

they require enforcement, which requires the existance of society, which means that human beings control how its enforced

so if we all come together and declare that our natural rights are null and void, that means it cannot be applied

> [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