Add in a second person, and what happens?

The only reason you would ever defend yourself against them is for your life, liberty, or your property.

There's your natural rights. The mutually agreed upon reasons for instigating violence.

That is also true

But I just thought of something regarding the laws and rights situation

You would need at least 3 people for such systems to work

Since you have two people against each other, but you’d also need a neutral arbiter to break the stalemate

Why?

If we have two people in conflict over their natural rights, then the only solution would be for one of them to come out on top, thus having the other’s rights violated

The third person is there to guarantee that both individuals’ rights are respected

And that one does not infringe upon the right of the other

Why do you assume that coming out on top = violating someone else's rights?

(But, tbh, you do come up on the modern qualms with natural rights in that assesment.)

I’m trying to find the right words to phrase it

But let’s say we have two people quarreling over their property rights

This quarrel can be resolved in two ways, one is that either one of them wins the conflict and comes out on top

You're conflating two aspects of the violence into one thing called "conflict"

Offense/defense

Anyway, in this violent conflict, if one beats the other into a pulp and wins, it violated the other’s right to for example their own physical safety

Don’t really know if I phrased that right

I get what you're saying

So in that outcome, at least one person will have their rights violated

Thus a third party is necessary to make a compromise or mete out justice

But: Rights are not granted, they are protected.

Every right comes with it an inherent responsibility

You have a RIGHT to life

You also have a responsibility to protect it

Attacking someone else unprovoked is denying that responsibility

That’s true, which is why I wanted to present the dilemma of the conflict

It wasn’t unprovoked, but both parties have equal justification for it

No such thing

So genuine question here: if life is a right and you have a responsibility to protect it, does failing that responsibility violate your right to life?

Pretty much

Or, forfeits it more like

Yeah I think forfeit is a better term

Anyway it’s late as fuck and I should’ve gone to bed hours ago, so goodnight

Been a pleasure

👌🏻

Be a player

Don't be an npc

<:oof:494878589406150657>

Good or bad?