GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
No, it is not irrelevant. People would like to claim they have a "Right" to Health Care, a home, a job, a paycheck, etc. and part of that "Right" requires seizing the products of your labor to pay for it.Rights are codified in law...whether they are "created" by law or not is seemingly irrelevant.
I did not take you as someone who didn't believe you had an inherent, self evident, Right to the products of your own labor but I might have been mistaken. Just remember that even if you do not recognize such a Right for yourself, there are no shortage of people right here on this forum who are eager to claim they have a "Right" to the products of your labor.
So if you're going to argue that you have no Right to the products of your own labor, and/or, anything claimed to be a Right can become a Right simply by being codified into law, then please say so in no mistakable terms.
Nature decided only an individual can have Rights. Individual Rights are the only kind of Rights that exist, there is no such thing as Collective Rights, Gay Rights, Womens Rights, Union Rights etc. these are all examples of special privileges that only apply to certain individuals.Who decided what rights exist, and how did they do so?
Individual Rights are necessary for an individual to survive, through his own efforts, in a society based on volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange.
It is the Protection of Rights that should be codified into law, not the Rights themselves. Hence the words, "Congress shall make no law..." That is a statement codifying the protection of a Right, not the Right itself.Government should codify rights within the law and protect them...
No different than it is now. I am the one who has argued that ALL our Rights, including the Right to bear arms, have already been reduced to privileges subject to regulation and cessasion at the whim of government.If the government amended the Constitution (in theory) and legally abolished the 2nd amendment...what your response to such an action be?
As stated above, it is the protection of Rights that must be codified into law. Now I ask you, what good are Rights if they can be abrogated, suppressed, regulated, and ignored by the Government who writes these Laws?Society has to operate in some framework..what good are rights if not codified in law?