Does a Human Being Have a Right to Exist Free from Government and Society?

a reply to: CharlestonChew

You will have to refer me to where I mention morality. I have explained why society has authority (because they can enforce it). That has nothing to do with morality.

The judgement of whether society is using it's authority in a moral way is a completely different and largely subjective one.

a reply to: ScepticScot

a reply to: ScepticScot

You will have to refer me to where I mention morality. I have explained why society has authority (because they can enforce it). That has nothing to do with morality.

The derivation of authority is a moral question.

The existence of a person with authority is not a justification for said person to hold authority in the first place. Neither is "might makes right."

"Might makes right" is an immoral argument to justify someone holding authority over another, and you used that argument to justify someone holding authority (because they can enforce it).

The judgement of whether society is using it's authority in a moral way is a completely different and largely subjective one.

Morality is only subjective when someone wants to harm another.

So, if you agree that Donald, Hillary, or Bernie may hold authority over you, why does your agreement extend to anyone other than yourself?

a reply to: CharlestonChew
The mechanism by which society makes decisions may or may not moral.
The decisions it makes may or may not be moral.
The fact that it can (emphasis on can) enforce these decisions has nothing to do with morality.
Not sure what your obsession is with three individuals who as it happens don't hold any authority over me anyway.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The mechanism by which society makes decisions may or may not moral.

A society cannot make decisions, anyway, it is a concept. Immoral mechanisms can be morally ignored.

The decisions it makes may or may not be moral.

Immoral decisions can be ignored.

For instance, it would have been moral for the Jews living in Germany during the '30s and '40s, not just to ignore the orders of the German police, but to actively fight them.

The fact that it can (emphasis on can) enforce these decisions has nothing to do with morality.

Might makes right is a moral justification for authority. It's also circular reasoning.

Not sure what your obsession is with three individuals who as it happens don't hold any authority over me anyway.

Of course they don't, but the word "if" is used to posit hypothetical scenarios. In this hypothetical scenario, you are consenting to be ruled over by another human being. Who is not important, why and how are.

If you give your consent to person A to hold authority over you, does person A's authority extend to me?

a reply to: CharlestonChew
Of couse a society can make decisions, unless you wish to define decisions in narrowest possible way.

You can of course choose to ignore laws and follow your own moral framework. That does not mean there is no consequences as society can choose to impose its rules on you.

Of course Jewish people were morally correct to fight back. That however is irrelevant to the question if people have a right to live free of society and it's laws.

Rights come from society (I know this annoys a lot of people but it is self evidently true). If you can find a way to live free from society the fair enough (I believe this to be all but impossible but still).
My point is that society is not a pick and mix you can choose what does and does not apply to you. You can believe and even be morally correct that you have a right to do something and still not have that right in practise.

Just to add I think you may want to look up circular reasoning or you have misunderstood my posts. 'I make rules because the rules are I'm in charge' is circular reasoning, 'I make the rules because I have the biggest stick' is reality.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I'll quote Thomas Jefferson (in the Declaration of Independence) here.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Rights are not granted to you by Society.

a reply to: Excallibacca
You will forgive me if I don't take the words of a slave owner as the last word on mans rights.
If rights are a gift from a creator then why do they vary between countries? If they are a gift from a creator how can a government take them away ?
Rights come from society. Appeals to a creator protect nothing.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Excallibacca
You will forgive me if I don't take the words of a slave owner as the last word on mans rights.
If rights are a gift from a creator then why do they vary between countries? If they are a gift from a creator how can a government take them away ?
Rights come from society. Appeals to a creator protect nothing.

Your logic is flawed there. Why would a government take away something it had given to you? See, government and society (being defined as "the governing body of a nation, state, or community" and "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community" respectively), are essentially the same thing. One can not exist without the other. If a society gives you rights, and the government set up by that society takes them away, why give them to you in the first place?

Appeals to a creator may protect nothing, but I'll surely protect my own NATURAL rights before I'd let a government.

Here's another thought for you to consider: "a government cannot grant rights, it can only list them."

a reply to: Excallibacca
Rights are effectively just laws that require a more rigorous process to change or remove. New rights can be brought into being and old ones removed by which ever mechanism exits to do so. Governments change, people change. What seemed obvious or important in the past may be completely different now. That is why they change.
If you have to protect it personally it isn't really much of a right.

a reply to: Metallicus

What about those of us that like to be part of a larger society? Or those people who thrive being a part of an "ism"? You can't say they aren't good for ALL individuals. The fact that each individual is different and likes different things and thrives in different environments is a core part of actually being an individual.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I'm sorry for you if that's actually how you feel. That's not what a Right is to most of us. A Right is something we can do whether anyone else likes it or not.