The Case of a Ruritanian Philosopher

I don’t have to worry about surviving in the jungle because I am a member of a culture that has accreted technology and processes since its members themselves were living in reed huts and eating what they killed. This process of accretion is called civilization, and it requires a certain quantity of high IQ individuals to start and maintain. This is fact, not a value judgment, other than from the standpoint of individuals who can appreciate an above-subsistence living standard. And the fact of the mendicant Buddhist and the bucolic Amish shows that, contrary to your assertion, members of civilized society do have a choice. The primitives do not; they live as objects in their environment.

And before you throw an egalitarian hissy fit, the process works the other way as well. The white British underclass will probably devolve to pre-literacy in a few generations.

Ever been in a prison and talked with criminal recidivists?

Yeah, but that’s a different matter, to do with custodial rights.

-Jon

My principle is respect for private property and what follows from it is civilization. Your principle is “might makes right” - I’ll let you figure out where your principle leads to.

I’m going to do something. Are you going to stop me?

I give up.

Seems to me that in this discussion Byzantine is confusing capacity with knowledge or ability. Capacity is a natural biological feature. Unless you’ve got some sort of science fictional uplifting technology, there’s nothing you can do to alter it. But I’m not aware of any normal, even primitive, human beings who lack a rational capacity. Primitive peoples only lack certain kinds of knowlege and ability. But it is not knowledge and ability upon which rights are based, but rather the natural rational capacity of man.

Depends what It is you’re proposing to do.

Colonization.

This is an excellent clarification.

Please review my prior posts. I’m not the one debating rights.