A right is something which you can legitimately defend with violence.
If you're unable to use violence, you effectively have no rights.
@lukedashjr love the outraged answers that you got to this on bird site😂
@lukedashjr I mean I find it amusing almost every answers you get there seemed to be "muh violence is bad", totally missing the point. It shows how little people thought about what rights are, and consider it is something granted and they can't imagine one day they might have to fight for it
@Sosthene @lukedashjr The challenge is that this theory is based on the self-referencing hypothesis that you have the right to fight for your rights. At best, you can consider this hypothesis as an axiom (~write it in the constitution). But, as maths teach us, people love to play with axioms (by removing or weakening them) because it leads to brand new geometries (models of societies).
Actually, I think that a lot of these discussions are often about how much of this animal inheritance is acceptable in our society.
@lukedashjr Violence continuity principle - if you have to consistently use violence, you're living in the wrong place.
@TallTim @lukedashjr it's not his point I think, more than a right is something you are always justified to fight for in last resort, mostly life, freedom and property. Well if you have to fight for this every day you might be better off going another place, and that's what most people do in this kind of situation indeed
@TallTim @lukedashjr if you are not allowed to use violence to defend something, it's a matter of time before someone use violence to take it away from you. If you rely on someone else granting you the right to be alive, free and to enjoy the result of your labor and have no mean to resist him if he wants to take any of that away from you, you're his slave by any definition of the term
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!