Free Trade

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by 108

That isn't much of a standard then

A right has to be defined by more than just our physical prowess...it is based on a social and legal construct, or their essentially is no right

Would just be mono y mono

I retain that a right is a concept, and Burke or should I say Ann, hadn't proven otherwise

Such is life as it has been given us, that only the mighty can afford to have principles. My faith in the natural rights of a free people is founded on the belief -- unprovable yet thus far uncontradicted -- that a free people are unconquerable.

[108]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Such is life as it has been given us, that only the mighty can afford to have principles.

Which was the need for legal rights

[Burke]

People are real. They exist and have an identity, a nature. If they want to live and be happy, they must behave in certain ways required by their nature. The principles for doing so are incorporated into a code called a moral code. Other people are part of your environment. The way people should deal with one another is a part of that wider moral code. It is known as rights.

That's essentially the meaning of rights.

The next issue is what that moral code should be and what rights should people have.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Burke

People are real. They exist and have an identity, a nature. If they want to live and be happy, they must behave in certain ways required by their nature. The principles for doing so are incorporated into a code called a moral code. Other people are part of your environment. The way people should deal with one another is a part of that wider moral code. It is known as rights.

That's essentially the meaning of rights.

The next issue is what that moral code should be and what rights should people have.

This is false. Other people are not environmental factors, they are essential components of man's nature and thus his morality.

[wgbgator]

My nature only demands that I survive. Nature requires nothing else. Everything else is nurtured within the context of whatever group/collective I happen to be born into.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

My nature only demands that I survive. Nature requires nothing else. Everything else is nurtured within the context of whatever group/collective I happen to be born into.

Man's nature is inherently social

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

If you put the fox in charge of guarding the henhouse, the results are predictable.

Businesses are fraught with the same shortcomings as all human endeavors. For the simple reason that trade and businesses were invented by humans and are run by humans. Same with government.

As such, this means business and government are subject to the same laws a humans. We don't kill each other. We don't hurt each other. We don't steal from each other.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Man's nature is inherently social

Yes, which manifests in both competition and mutual aid with others.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Yes, which manifests in both competition and mutual aid with others.

Of course, the sum of which taken as a whole being the subject of morality.

[Burke]

When you are discussing morality, you are discussing values-things you seek to gain or keep.

So, what's your highest value?

Your own happiness?

The good of others?

Keeping God happy?

What?

[108]

Originally Posted by Burke

People are real. They exist and have an identity, a nature. If they want to live and be happy, they must behave in certain ways required by their nature. The principles for doing so are incorporated into a code called a moral code. Other people are part of your environment. The way people should deal with one another is a part of that wider moral code. It is known as rights.

That's essentially the meaning of rights.

The next issue is what that moral code should be and what rights should people have.

the fact that you are asking that question contradicts what you said rights were to begin with

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Burke

When you are discussing morality, you are discussing values-things you seek to gain or keep.

So, what's your highest value?

Your own happiness?

The good of others?

Keeping God happy?

What?

The foundation of morality is heuristic rather than rational, though its application may be rationalized. But through the glass we may darkly peer at a cosmic order that seems to embrace particular principles. Unfortunately only objectivists have direct experience of these principles in themselves, the rest of us have to content ourselves with empirical and speculative investigations as to their nature.

[corpgator]

Originally Posted by 108

That isn't much of a standard then

A right has to be defined by more than just our physical prowess...it is based on a social and legal construct, or there essentially is no right

Would just be mono y mono

I retain that a right is a concept, and Burke or should I say Ann, hadn't proven otherwise

Monkey and monkey?