• queermunist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And if they shoot you for resisting arrest you won’t be struggling much after that.

          Nothing is inalienable.

          • Dissasterix @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, I can be killed. And, sure, inanimate objects and the deceased do not have rights. However it would still be questionable as to why a restrained person was shot :p Further, our mortality does not mean that we dont have rights, lol. This is objectively true as you will die yet you have inalienable rights.

            • queermunist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Our mortality literally does mean we don’t have inalienable rights - rights are things we fight to have and maintain, not something we’re just born with by virtue of being alive. All rights can be taken away if they aren’t protected, they aren’t sacred or magic or God-given.

              The Founders considered these rights inalienable because they were superstitious and believed in immortal souls. In their minds, death didn’t really rob people of their rights because their spirit would always be free.

              Without 1700s superstition to justify the concept it doesn’t really work.

              • Dissasterix @lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Okay, this is getting good now :] I actually agree with their premise, that the dead are free. I mean, unless theres a whole bureaucracy to the underworld, lol. I think we will both agree that the dead are not pestered by corporeal issues like war and taxes, and so on. That there is no boot that can be applied to them. Souns nice :p

                I think our rub is predominantly ‘Positive vs. Negative rights.’ Positive rights require Uncle Sam to hold them together, whereas negative liberty is innate, and our Constitution forbids government from trying to stop it. I think Negative rights are more real than Positive rights (like voting).

                • queermunist@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  So-called “negative liberty” is only innate if you accept superstition. Without souls or other such magical concepts, we are slaves to our mortality. Freedom is something we must fight for every day of our lives, and the moment we stop living our freedom is gone too. How free are the sick? The starving? The children gunned down in schools?

                  We will only be free when we defeat death, and we can only do that by working together. Until then, we need a government to ensure our right to life isn’t taken from us by a cold or famine or jungle cats.

                  The dead are not free. This is where I reject the Founder’s ideology.

                  • Dissasterix @lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I agree with a lot of your sentiment :] I also agree that we must strive to hold our precious (negative) liberties. That they erode quickly. However, the government does not ensure our rights-- they’re the entities our rights protect us against! Like literally, lol.

                    You can say they’ve made us safe from disease and harm, but theres been an awful lot of disease and harm lately. There is no amount of tax revenue that will make that happen. ‘Full luxury gay space communism’ is as bad a larp as AnCaps. Probably even worse, tbh.

                    If the dead are not free then who is their oppressor? Sounds spookier than the Founder’s take.