Search the Community

Howdy folks, I just posted a video responce to this video (in favor of too) on my blog. See what you think... http://coffeechat.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/18771179-upb-vs-rights

"The right to not be robbed does not preclude the obligation to give, it simply restricts others from enforcing this obligation through theft." What do people think of this argument?

There have been an increasing fervor of debate and discussion regarding human rights lately. But during a conversation that started with UPB and ended up being a discussion about the innate nature of human rights I came to a startling conclusion: There is no such thing as rights outside of the sphere of government. The political definition of a right according to wikipedia.org is: Therefore, even recognizing the existence or need of rights implies a necessity of government. So what are rights really, and how can we better understand our existence and the ability to exist outside of government by changing some fundamental verbage we use that inadvertantly advocates the very thing we are fighting against? All human beings on this planet are innately free. From the moment we are able to form opinions and decisions and learn as much as we can to make the most informed decisions we can, we are at the height of freedom. It is only in our decision, albeit collectively, to allow a comparatively small amount of people influence the realities of the many that we become slaves to that reality instead of our full potential. I don't want to get too far into this to keep it open for discussion...so I look forward to hearing from you all about my thoughts!!!