The Myth That Is Falling Real Wages

[apehead]

@Old Mexican

What makes you think you have a right to object to your murder?

I don’t think I have the right to object to my murder. In fact, I don’t think rights even exist! I thought we already agreed that we don’t need the “right” to act in order to act. For example, in your moral ideology, murderers don’t have the right to murder. Yet murders still occur. Do you understand?

If you don’t have rights, you would then not have freedom to decide if your life is to be spared or not, no matter how unappealing the idea of dying. If you say you do have the freedom to decide, then you would be contradticting yourself.

I disagree with this notion. Observe:

ahem,

“I, Jackson LaRose, being of sound mind and body, do willingly renounce my right to life.”

Well, I’m still here. There is a difference between having something and having the right to something. Much like the difference between possession and property (I’m just asking for it now).

Which means you would be committing a perfunctory contradiction.

Why?

Of COURSE you are asserting your right to life - I am not talking to a barnacle, am I?

I disagree. Mmm, barnacle…

It’s not a simple justification to action, Jackson - you may say that you have a right to someone else’s wife and then take action. Would you be right, or would then say that the wife has no right to object, like you did above?

Don’t ask me, I think right and wrong are made up.

A right is the freedom to act UNCOERCED and NON AGGRESSIVELY (i.e. acting in a MORAL way). That’s it. It is NOT an A Posteriori justification for acts, like YOU said.

Cripes, I knew it. Semantics again. I’ll spare you the trouble and just let you know is that the best we can do at this point is agree to disagree about the definition of the term. If you still want to discuss, I would take Michael J Green’s advice and head over to the What is a Right? thread. Clayton and AJ can elucidate far better than I.