Nope. Rights have been asserted through violence when neccessary, and it could be argued the defence of and assertion of then is the only excuse for violence, but to say rights come from guns is to say might makes right, that's invalid. But the defense of and assertion of equal rights does allow the use of force.Originally Posted by MissConstrued
Nope, Magna Carta, The French Revolution, the American Bill of Rights and far more involved both the philosophers in the parlours and on the battlefields arm in arm with the commoners. They did not come from the commoners alone but from the educated explaining the ideas to the commoners and working with them to overthrow or at least reduce the power of the aristocracy.The Magna Carta did not exist because of philosophers scribbling treatises in their parlors. It came about because the commoners, in sufficient numbers, were no longer willing to live without it, and were willing to use violence to assert themselves.
Look again at history. The left has often been violent both in persuing wars when in power as well as supporting revolutions and in violent uprising. Only in recent decades has the left gone all hippy and pacifist in the main.As much violence is abhorrent to you leftist softies,
Does it? The re-evaluation of the Dark Ages for example finds them actually to have been a time of great prosperity and advancement, but few wars and wars are favourites of historians. That speaks more of the bias of historians doesn't it? The times of great peace in the holy lands when Jews Muslims and Chsristians got along.. mostly ignored. The Crusades are much more studied and noted.it nevertheless reigns supreme historically
Often thats where tyranny and genocide comes from also. Tell me how many minorities get protected by violence compared to oppressed by it?Where people retain the capability for violence against oppression, there will be freedom.
Where for example are the straight militia fullfilling their duty to protect the rights of Gays? That too is a rights issue and everyone is obligated to defend the rights of others or the rights won't be protected as equal, if the rights aren't considered equal their validity ceases to exist. And without that validity all you have is unethical abuse of power.
But you do need them to understand and know what your rights are, and the rights of others you have a duty to not impede and a duty to protect! Or better yet, learn the philosophy yourself and take back the intellectual power. Insist on it being taught to others...But I sure as shit ain't gonna depend on philosophers to protect my rights.
Thats the most dangerous idea of all... teaching philosophy to the masses. It's what terrified Athens when Socrates taught the young to question authority and how to determine truth for themselves. And even when they tried him and had him executed he won by the power of his arguments. Even his own death was a victory.
No. Rights are unprotected without it and easilly violated. But they are also violated by misusing force too.Rights are imaginary without force to back them up.
You don't need to take a life, but risk it.. perhaps. You know MissConstrued, I think your going to find yourself really aggreeing with Socrates. When you read enough of him I think you'll find a hero in him. I mean that seriously.If you wouldn't risk your life, or take another, to defend them, then rights don't mean much to you.
I dare you to read enough about Socrates to understand what I mean. And before you know it I am sure you will agree with Ethics of Reciprocity too when you consider it objectively with ll the pro and con arguments. In fact I dare say you have the potential of being a potent philosopher of the most dangerous kind, one who can easilly discuss these ideas in simple everyday language.
And I'm sure once your willing to risk your current opinions as much as your life that you'll find Socrates was right, I'm right and thr Yogyakarta Principles are largely right.
