I was watching several videos on youtube about how most human rights are threats of government violence with the exception of a couple.
The idea being the two basic human rights are basically negetive ones. You don't have the right to impose violent aggression without reasonable provocation (Things like self defence, protecting against wreckless behavior and so on, not hurting people who insult you."
The other is you don't have the right to break promises.
The argument being that every other right is a threat of violence.
If someone has the right to education, a teacher has to be provided, the teacher has to be paid for, if people refuse to pay taxes for everyone elses education they're eventually threatened with prison, if they resist they're treated with violence. This violates the principle that you don't impose violent aggression without reasonable provocation in self defence and wreckless behavior.
Any opinions on this at all?
The person making these arguments is Stefan Molyneux a person I've mentioned before. A free market capitalist/anarchist.
I think his views are pretty fascinating because they're pretty viciously straight down the middle and go against a lot of left wing and right wing ideas.
A lot of his videos are pro left wing in regaurds to religion, treatment of children, homosexuals, being against war.
They're pro right wing in regaurds to buisiness, freedom, immigration.
The opinions I'd be most interested in are those relating to the two principles of not initiating violent force and not breaking your promises and how that relates to real life practical policies.
The idea being the two basic human rights are basically negetive ones. You don't have the right to impose violent aggression without reasonable provocation (Things like self defence, protecting against wreckless behavior and so on, not hurting people who insult you."
The other is you don't have the right to break promises.
The argument being that every other right is a threat of violence.
If someone has the right to education, a teacher has to be provided, the teacher has to be paid for, if people refuse to pay taxes for everyone elses education they're eventually threatened with prison, if they resist they're treated with violence. This violates the principle that you don't impose violent aggression without reasonable provocation in self defence and wreckless behavior.
Any opinions on this at all?
The person making these arguments is Stefan Molyneux a person I've mentioned before. A free market capitalist/anarchist.
I think his views are pretty fascinating because they're pretty viciously straight down the middle and go against a lot of left wing and right wing ideas.
A lot of his videos are pro left wing in regaurds to religion, treatment of children, homosexuals, being against war.
They're pro right wing in regaurds to buisiness, freedom, immigration.
The opinions I'd be most interested in are those relating to the two principles of not initiating violent force and not breaking your promises and how that relates to real life practical policies.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
Impersonation is treason.
