Wrongness is wrong because...
Murder is wrong because it violates an individual's rights.
Rape is wrong because it violates an individual's rights.
"Gun control" is wrong because it violates an individual's rights.
There is really no difference in the wrongness of those wrongs.
These things aren't wrong because they are illegal and aren't right when they are "legal".
They aren't wrong because people agree they are wrong.
They don't stop being wrong if a majority stops believing they are wrong, because individuals are still being violated.
If an act violates the rights of an individual, then you have no right to do it. If you do it anyway, you did wrong. You committed evil. That you believe your act is "necessary" changes nothing.
.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
We dont have rights to violate human rihghts
Murder and Rape are the big violates
I totally agree with you @dullhawk
Perfect!
I am working on an article describing the difference between natural consequence, the consequences of violating the rights of others such that reciprocal force in self-defense is warranted, and imposed consequences by arbitrary government dictate. Unfortunately, people don't learn about natural law in school, so I don't know where to begin on a concept that should be well-understood. Here is what I hole can serve as a primer for the bewildered:
Life—no one has the authority to deprive anyone else of life, unless perhaps in self-defense or defense of others against initiatory aggression.
Liberty—People have the authority to act as they see fit to survive and improve their lives unless they violate the reciprocal rights of others to the same.
Property—The physical changes people make in the world around them to transform nature into a more useful form, or the exchanges they make for goods and services through mutual voluntary consent, are part of the sphere of individual authority, and help define that sphere to prevent trespass against the liberty of others or inform a rational standard to describe where others may trespass against yourself.
The Pursuit of Happiness—Happiness is not a guarantee, but no one has the right to forbid others from whatever means they may chose to seek it within their spheres of authority as defined by life, liberty, and property.
Any suggestions? We need something simple for the people who claim a "right" to healthcare, welfare, price controls, subsidies, bailouts, etc. across the political spectrum.
I'm assuming you have seen the Philosophy of Liberty video. It kind of follows that path to truth.
Your words are right thanks for your posts
Certainly these things are contrary to humanity before it is prevented by positive law
When people make mistakes in their conscience, they make mistakes when they think they are right, when they are brought under the law, they recognize these mistakes and acknowledge the mistake and make a nice comment, thank you for this.
This is amazing and cool sir the way you have explained in so simple terms.
Great one sir you just explained it in one line thanks a lot sir.
Well said sir i am a big fan of you and you have said what it requires tyo be stopped.
This is amazing concept about limitation vs voilation.