|
|
|
|
|
|
by ultrahate
3411 days ago
|
|
|
What a shame that I'm excited that my country still supports my rights as a citizen to some degree. I'm disappointingly satisfied. Our rights are inalienable and self-evidently truthful. How can someone or some court thereafter determine what rights I have? |
|
|
I would probably define a right as "A persuasion technique for convincing others to decide disputes in your favor". Then, your rights can be weakened simply by having people not be persuaded by them; and removed legally by having the highest court not be persuaded by them.
If somebody asks something like, "Do monkeys have rights?", keep in mind that nothing about the universe changes depending on that answer. No computers will blink their lights on in response to a sensor picking up a right when it scans you. So rights don't exist.
Why do people pretend that rights exist, even though they don't? Game-theoretically, collectively pretending that we have a natural-born right to free speech independent from the government reduces the risk that a King will rise up and cause trouble while suppressing the press. Anyone questioning his policies can appeal to the right in their arguments.
So we choose to allow ourselves to admit an "appeal to a right" in arguments, because we want others to be convinced as well. So "Why do people not respect my rights?" seems ill-framed, but "Why do people not understand the consequences of allowing a right to be asserted?" is. And there would be no such thing as a "self-evidently truthful" right, only a right where the consequences of allowing it to be asserted in an argument are clearly beneficial.