Cont.... Not the "capacity" to take a certain kind of action, the necessity to take said action. You do not have the necessity to do just anything you can get away with. Yes, all actions have potential consequences in a universe of cause and effect. Even without somebody else attendant to the action, your actions could still have bad consequences, like felling a tree on yourself. Not sure why anyone else caring should matter for a right. Successful self-defense should matter to you, as it means your life continues. And I'm equally puzzled as to why a right would entail proclaiming it. Either a natural or legal successful self-defense would result in the same outcome. You survived. I guess in the legal sense, you maybe avoided dying twice. Once when attacked and again by avoiding the potential execution for murder. That could make the enforcement of rights, itself, a potential threat not found in nature. But I guess that's the trade-off for safety in numbers. I would hope that most people have some sense of what is "acceptable behavior" without any external moral judgement at all. I would hope that you know that defending your own life is a moral good, just based on the objective fact that you survive. One's own survival would seem to be inherently good, and things that are inherently good should be trivially moral. Yes, in nature, the only consequence from infringing upon the individual's rights comes from the individual himself. And yes, granted rights cannot be legally exercised without the agreement of the grantor (like requiring a license to drink a car), except where the supposedly granted right happens to coincide with a natural right (in which case, the revocation of the natural right by the supposed grantor is, itself, a potential violation of said natural right... like if some king claimed to grant your right to life and revoking it could means it is deemed forfeit). So yeah, that's a fair definition. Natural rights are inherent because the individual is capable of exercising such necessary actions on his own, whether successful or not. But even in granted rights, success is not necessarily guaranteed. Absolutes rarely obtain. Granted rights, like protected natural rights, just tend to have more authority behind their enforcement. Boy, that's one hell of a crappy model. None of the primary defining features are similar. Really? You can't recognize garbage without being angry? Whew! What a life you must lead. Really? When the legislature can abolish judiciary courts, to get rid of tenured judges, and the PM is a member of the legislature? I would suggest that your understanding of the US Constitution may be somewhat lacking. That's okay. I'm not 100% on yours either. The separation of powers (SOP) theory from Locke and Blackstone is used for the SOP theory in Australia. In practice, the English rather than the American system of government and SOP is the model used for the Australian Commonwealth Government and SOP....The concept of the SOP in Australia is articulated by the High Court and is derived from the Blackstonian SOP theory rather than the Federalist SOP theory. http://www.cpahq.org/cpahq/cpadocs/The Separation of Powers in Australia Issues for the States.pdf There are many who believe that the US system has too many checks and balances between the different branches of Government, rending them almost ungovernable. But we must remember, many Constitutions around the world, including the US Constitution, were written after years of conflict, when trust in people with power and institutions was low. They built their system with so many checks and balances for that reason. In Australia, we wrote our Constitution so that the six British colonies could join together to create a country. We weren’t fearful of Government institutions. So while we also have a strong separation of powers, our system was designed not to be held up too much by disagreements between the three arms of Government. http://www.cefa.org.au/ccf/separation-powers-display-america So by American standards, your SOP is rather weak. Okay, co-equally incestuous branches of government.
Cont... Really? You're right to defend your own life is somewhat more intangible than what's necessary for your survival? Then you are "different to [me] and have no objective basis for rights". Only if you're a hypocrite, as you provided no support of your assertion on the matter. So, largely philosophers and activists. Well, I guess it's your business if you want to call that credible. 1. No, except when they eat poo. 2. Likely 3. Yes 4. Sure 5. Yes, so can my dog and I. 6. Yes, so can my dog. 7. Yes, most animals experience pain. 8. Of the word "person"? Yes. I also consider my 84% shared genetics with a pig, that can also learn to communicate with humans and feel pain, as "controversial usages justified with nothing more than anthropomorphism". That would seem to indicate that the anthropomorphism of apes is more about superficial, visual similarity than any other shared feature. 9. All life has some inherent natural rights, and most animals have some amount of recognized rights. If you say so. 9_9 Well, everyone's got an opinion. Well, not impressed so far. Yeah, only about 7.8 billion of 'em lyin' about. Pretty damn scarce. Luckily, I'm fairly discerning about the company I keep. So plenty for me, with some left over even. Well, maybe I'm just old fashioned. Back in the stone ages, people use to roll their eyes, clear back into their heads, I tell ya, when someone would say they had 300 friends on this oddity called Facebook. Maybe you've heard of it. Anyway, I've had my share of pen pals, who I correspond with over personal email. Haven't met all of them in person, but I know their faces, real names, have mutual standing invites, share some not insignificant interests with them, etc.. Those aren't strangers. Anonymous, faceless people on a forum...strangers. Now, I'm not judging if you like yourself some strange. Variety is the spice of life. A virtual hug? 9_9
