Looks Like I have to do Your Job For you -- for inquiring small minds

[Universe Prince]

What good do wimpy or absent unions do?

Probably none whatsoever, Plane. Too bad there is nothing between "great big, powerful unions" and "wimpy or absent unions".

Oh crap. There I go being sarcastic again.

[Plane]

What good do wimpy or absent unions do?

Probably none whatsoever, Plane. Too bad there is nothing between "great big, powerful unions" and "wimpy or absent unions".

Unions should be how big?

If you think that organising labor is useless then I could understand being unconcerned with their demise.

I think that the right size for a union is the size it takes to strike.

How big is that , if the scab supply is drawn from the whole continent?

[BT]

What rights does the individual actually have?

This is not a vague question?

[Universe Prince]

Unions should be how big? [...] I think that the right size for a union is the size it takes to strike.

The size it takes for whom to strike?

[Universe Prince]

What rights does the individual actually have?

This is not a vague question?

No, it is not. Unless you think the concept of rights is a vague concept, and I don't. And, at least for nations, you apparently don't either. Why are the supposed rights of a sovereign nation something you seem able to easily specify, to the point of saying a nation has a right an an obligation to control its borders, but the rights of the of the individual are some how too vague to be mentioned? You seem to be able to claim with specificity that individuals do not have a right to international migration, but somehow what rights the individual actually does have is something vague? No, asking what rights does the individual actually have is not vague. And your evasive answer is useless to furthering any substantive discussion.

If you can tell me that the supposed right of a nation to control its borders trumps the right of the individual in this instance, then it hardly seems vague to ask does the right of the individual ever trump the right of the nation. Either there is at least one instance where you would say the right of the individual trumps the supposed right of the nation, in which case you should be able to name the specific instance(s), or you think there are no such instances, in which case the specific answer to the question would be a simple 'no'.

You delivered answers that yielded nothing. You say the individual does not have this right. So when asked what rights does the individual have, you answer by saying the individual does not have this right. Your answer told me nothing you had not already said. Your unprofitable answers deserve criticism and sarcasm and little more.

You want something worth your bother, well, if you start delivering something worth mine, then maybe you'll see it. If all you can manage is to whine because you don't like my sarcasm, then perhaps you are not worth the bother. And that ain't sarcasm.

[BT]

Is the "right for a man and a woman to marry" actually a right? If so why do you need a license?

Is the license a permit, indicating privilege, like a drivers license, or is it a certification of qualification, which would indicate that the "right" is limited, conditional and arbitrary.

If individual rights are God given, what happens if there is no God to give them.

If inalienable rights are of natural law, then these rights can not be universal because in nature the strongest is always able to suppress the weakest. Thus the need for a social contract and a polity strong enough to protect the weakest member of the society.

In the case of transborder immigration, if you say it is a right of natural law, a rancher with a gun can suppress that right easily.

If it is a civil right, then it follows that that right can be trumped by a political entity that deems control of the flow is in the entities best interest.

[Universe Prince]

Is the "right for a man and a woman to marry" actually a right? If so why do you need a license?

1) Yes, and 2) you don't. Not to exercise the right. A legal requirement does not mean something is or is not a right.

Is the license a permit, indicating privilege, like a drivers license, or is it a certification of qualification, which would indicate that the "right" is limited, conditional and arbitrary.

Your questions assume the right is defined by the law. It is not. How the law treats the exercise of a right does not define the right itself. Rights do not exist because we have laws. We have laws because rights exist.

If individual rights are God given, what happens if there is no God to give them.

Prove to me there is no God, and we'll discuss that.

If inalienable rights are of natural law, then these rights can not be universal because in nature the strongest is always able to suppress the weakest. Thus the need for a social contract and a polity strong enough to protect the weakest member of the society.

Very Hobbesian of you. But you're making the mistake of assuming that rights and the liberty to exercise those rights are the same thing, and they are not.

In the case of transborder immigration, if you say it is a right of natural law, a rancher with a gun can suppress that right easily.

No, he cannot. He might infringe the liberty of the individual to exercise the right (assuming for the sake of argument that "transborder immigration" is a right), but the rancher cannot take away the right itself. A person's right to free speech is not eliminated because someone else puts duct tape over the person's mouth. The right still exists. If the right does not still exist, then there is no such thing as rights, only privileges granted at the whim of others.

If it is a civil right, then it follows that that right can be trumped by a political entity that deems control of the flow is in the entities best interest.

Does that follow? I do not believe you have provided a sound argument for that. First you need to define what you mean by "civil right" because there are several definitions from which to choose.

Anyway, yet again you engage in misdirection. Rather than return to the questions asked of you and provide clearer answers, you throw up a barrage of questions and comments intended to keep me on the defensive. Any teenager with a single semester of a civics class can form the questions and comments you provided. That you can produce them does little to prove answering them in any detail for you would be worth my time. I'm beginning to get the impression that you only bother to engage me because you seek to try to embarrass me for my expressed opinions. It would explain your reluctance to clearly and directly answer reasonable questions, your constant attempt to shift the parameters of the discussion away from the wimpish answers you do provide, and the tone of your replies to me being frequently more antagonistically condescending than generally inquisitive or respectfully objecting.

[BT]

1) Yes, and 2) you don't. Not to exercise the right. A legal requirement does not mean something is or is not a right.

How do you exercise that right if it is not recognized legally. What would be the point?

Your questions assume the right is defined by the law. It is not. How the law treats the exercise of a right does not define the right itself. Rights do not exist because we have laws. We have laws because rights exist.

If not defined by law, how is it defined? How is it protected, and by whom?

Prove to me there is no God, and we'll discuss that.

Deflection. If rights are God given and if there is no God, do those rights still exist. If so, how.

Very Hobbesian of you. But you're making the mistake of assuming that rights and the liberty to exercise those rights are the same thing, and they are not.

Why are they not the same. What good are they, if they can't be exercised?

No, he cannot. He might infringe the liberty of the individual to exercise the right (assuming for the sake of argument that "transborder immigration" is a right), but the rancher cannot take away the right itself.

Do dead men have rights?

A person's right to free speech is not eliminated because someone else puts duct tape over the person's mouth. The right still exists. If the right does not still exist, then there is no such thing as rights, only privileges granted at the whim of others.

That's pretty much how it is in the real world.

Does that follow? I do not believe you have provided a sound argument for that. First you need to define what you mean by "civil right" because there are several definitions from which to choose.

Anyway, yet again you engage in misdirection. Rather than return to the questions asked of you and provide clearer answers, you throw up a barrage of questions and comments intended to keep me on the defensive. Any teenager with a single semester of a civics class can form the questions and comments you provided. That you can produce them does little to prove answering them in any detail for you would be worth my time. I'm beginning to get the impression that you only bother to engage me because you seek to try to embarrass me for my expressed opinions. It would explain your reluctance to clearly and directly answer reasonable questions, your constant attempt to shift the parameters of the discussion away from the wimpish answers you do provide, and the tone of your replies to me being frequently more antagonistically condescending than generally inquisitive or respectfully objecting.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought you knew the difference between natural rights and those rights afforded by the social contract, ie , civil rights. Perhaps you slept through that chapter of civics class.

[Universe Prince]

Oh I'm sorry, I thought you knew the difference between natural rights and those rights afforded by the social contract, ie , civil rights. Perhaps you slept through that chapter of civics class.

That is one definition of civil rights, but not the only one. I suggest you would benefit from tempering your cleverness (and I use that term loosely) with research.

Anyway, you are clearly not interested in having a discussion. I see no reason to spend my time answering your questions. How does the saying go? Oh yes, I remember now. You are "hardly worth the bother."

[BT]

Let me see if I have this right.

You are allowed to make snide remarks about civics class but I am not.

You demand others answer your questions but you are exempt from answering questions.

Must be nice.

[Plane]

Does an individual have a right to own real estate?


Does an individual real estate owner have the right to forbid other persons to cross his boundries without permission?


If the answers of the first two of these is yes , and yes then;

Does a large group of persons have property right simular to an individual?

[Plane]

Unions should be how big? [...] I think that the right size for a union is the size it takes to strike.

The size it takes for whom to strike?

An individual may strike , but few individuals are so critical and unique  that such an individual protest is effective.

I think that the right of an individual to strike is an unalienable individual right , whether effective or not.

I consider the right of individuals to act in concert with other individuals in peacefull protest is a very strong right, not lightly to be restricted .



Unions need to be of a certain size to be effective barganers , they need the size of membership representing the ability to strike or boycot effectively. This is an important tool for effecting change with peacefull force.

Laws or circumstances ,which limit or eliminate the rights of workers to influence the terms of their working contracts ,are dangerous to the rights of workers to act as if they are the owners of their own labor.

[Plane]

If rights are God given and if there is no God, do those rights still exist.


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

If there is no God then they are certainly not "god given" rights .

Accepting this posit eliminates all God given scripture and all wisdom derived therefrom.

What a challenge.

But Practical! I want my rights respected by persons who do not accept my understanding of God and I do admit that even total athiests have a certain set of rights to be respected.

Wince then rights?

Have I a right to be alive? I certainly want this right and to get such a right I should be willing to admit this right to other persons.

Lions do not admit for Zebra any right to live above the Lions right to have a lunch. Neither do I admit any rights to Chickens which would prevent  my lunch. Yet I do admit the rights of another person , another human being, to have all rights that I also have.  As I acnoledge another human being as a creature like myself , as I want others to acnoledge my own rights I must be willing to reciprocate.

So the basis of Human rights seems to be a mutual contract, tacit or recorded , between human beings. This understanding might work better if it were universally contracted , if we all wanted the same set of rights , since it  is pretty hard to produce universal consensus we really should start with a few basic rights  that are indeed universally wanted so that we can reasonably demand that these rights be universally respected.

[Universe Prince]

Let me see if I have this right.

You are allowed to make snide remarks about civics class but I am not.

You demand others answer your questions but you are exempt from answering questions.

Must be nice.

No, you don't have this correct at all. I would be willing to answer your questions if I thought there was anything to be gained by it. I've pointed out that you're trying to attack me rather than discuss anything with me, and notably you have not denied it. Once more though, you try to pretend that somehow your lack of providing anything of value to the conversation is my fault.

Of course you are "allowed" to make snide remarks about civics class. You are free to make all the snide remarks you like. And no, I am not "exempt" from answering questions. I explained why I'm not bothering to answer this latest string of questions and comments from you. Answering them is clearly not worth my time because you are clearly not trying to discuss anything. You're just trying to attack my position. Feel free to attack my position all you like, but that doesn't require me to sit still and be your punching bag.

You're whining now because I'm not answering your questions. That is kinda funny, coming from you. Routinely you ignore questions asked of you. And when you do answer questions, your answers are often useless. Meanwhile I am supposed to answer your barrage of questions, that apparently have no intent other than to attempt to embarrass me for expressing libertarian ideas, to your satisfaction? Pardon me while I laugh in your face. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! No sir, BT, I am not in the wrong for not wishing to be part of this juvenile game you're playing.

When you want to discuss the matter, let me know. If all you want to do is attack me and then whine like a child when I don't play along, that is your failing, not mine.

[Universe Prince]

Does an individual have a right to own real estate?


Does an individual real estate owner have the right to forbid other persons to cross his boundries without permission?

Yes, and yes.

If the answers of the first two of these is yes , and yes then;

Does a large group of persons have property right simular to an individual?

Sure. What they don't have is a right to prevent others from exercising their own rights.

An individual may strike , but few individuals are so critical and unique  that such an individual protest is effective.

I think that the right of an individual to strike is an unalienable individual right , whether effective or not.

I consider the right of individuals to act in concert with other individuals in peacefull protest is a very strong right, not lightly to be restricted .



Unions need to be of a certain size to be effective barganers , they need the size of membership representing the ability to strike or boycot effectively. This is an important tool for effecting change with peacefull force.

Laws or circumstances ,which limit or eliminate the rights of workers to influence the terms of their working contracts ,are dangerous to the rights of workers to act as if they are the owners of their own labor.

Okay, but that didn't answer the question.

I think that the right of an individual to strike is an unalienable individual right , whether effective or not.

So the basis of Human rights seems to be a mutual contract, tacit or recorded , between human beings.

Plane, you have contradicted yourself.