The Individual Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 (edited) How to refute this statement "I have a right to walk anywhere I like. Therefore I should be able to walk anywhere I like. No one should be able to stop me because it is my right. If I want to walk into a private property, it is my right to, no one has the right to stop me." I argued that it would be a violation of the private owner's rights. And he argued then it would violate this "rights to walk anywhere". We ended up with a conflict of interest. Firstly, is the "right to walk anywhere" a legitimate right? My thought is this: I have the right to walk - but not anywhere. And also this: "I have a right to breathe clean air. So no one should smoke around me because it is a violation of my rights." Edited December 19, 2009 by The Individual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 There is no right to walk anywhere you like. You can take any action you'd like and prefix it with "I have a right to...", but that doesn't make it so. He / they have to justify that claim, and show why it isn't also tru that I have a right to take anything I want". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A is A Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 How to refute this statement "I have a right to walk anywhere I like. Therefore I should be able to walk anywhere I like. No one should be able to stop me because it is my right. If I want to walk into a private property, it is my right to, no one has the right to stop me." I argued that it would be a violation of the private owner's rights. And he argued then it would violate this "rights to walk anywhere". We ended up with a conflict of interest. Firstly, is the "right to walk anywhere" a legitimate right? My thought is this: I have the right to walk - but not anywhere. And also this: "I have a right to breathe clean air. So no one should smoke around me because it is a violation of my rights." You cannot begin an argument with an assumption that you can do anything you like. Rights are not emotional ejaculations. Rights are moral principles that define the nature of an action you may take in a social context. Politically, the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness form the foundation for evaluating any other right that one claims. Thus, there is no "right to walk" on someone else's property or to violate their liberty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Why do we come up with the idea of rights in the first place? Keeping people off our property is one reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayR Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 .... If I want to walk into a private property, it is my right to, no one has the right to stop me." Without property rights, there can be no other rights. If you start your argument on that correct premise, you can go beyond that by stating that to violate private property rights is an initiation of force. Is that also a right... the right to initiate force on another individual? Not if survival as man qua man is our highest standard. I'm sure you know a thorough explanation as to why property rights hold a certain primacy over all others is detailed in Rands VOS. That could be your ammo. j... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.