(July 16, 2015 at 1:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: What you are basically saying is that force and compulsion are the highest authorities. Most of you seem to incapable of making the distinction between human rights and civil rights. For example, trial by jury is a civil right, the benefit of being a citizen of a specific state. Human rights transcend one's status as a citizen. That is why they are called human rights. So if you think that rights are a human construct then you do not actually believe in human rights. The logical consequence of this is the rationalization to take away another's liberty by force for no reason at all. You are laying the foundation for tyranny.
The distinction between civil and human rights, or even criminal and civil rights, is meaningless to a broader philosophical discussion about the existence of universal human rights. The problem is that you're basically arguing that because something is desirable and nicer it must be true - That's not what happens. Tyranny can be rational, it is merely a reaction to a former system (usually democracy - Plato was right) and has its place in history, it tends to be transitional. Yes, force and compulsion are higher authorities because that's what the State founds itself upon, otherwise you are arguing for anarchy. You can only take away liberty if you have a tyrannical constitution - If it's a democratic one, you can't.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you