This will be short and quick, it's 4chan after all. I just don't know where else to put this — And it's inherently political. But I think you'll enjoy it. I'll upload it in 3 parts for the 3 rights, and this is the first right.

(The First Right - Life).
Everyone has a right to life. This is because every individual values and protects their life against individuals who try to take their life. The reason why every individual values and protects their life is because every part of our biology is dedicated to keeping us alive so that we may breed and propagate. Our bodies have many mechanisms to keep us alive — But one of the most well known is the flight or fight response. This response occurs when we see a threat.

When we see this threat, our body immediately releases epinephrine, a substance that induces tachycardia, and increases tissue perfusion substantially, circulating more oxygen and glucose to the skeletal muscles. This increased perfusion brings a surplus of glucose and oxygen, which promotes an accelerated rate of cellular respiration from the extra glucose and oxygen. This increased cellular respiration synthesizes large amounts of adenosine-triphosphate, which allows you to fight harder or run faster.

Since everyone on individual level values and protects their life, and they do so because our nature is wired for us to value and protect our life, then we all have a right to life, because if we want to have the right to live as individuals, and we clearly do by how we protect our lives, then we must protect the lives of others because rights are universal and inalienable.

(The Second Right - Liberty).

Everyone has a right to liberty. This is because everyone on an individual level values and protects their power to choose. They do this because liberty increases the odds of survival. The individual that has the power of choice is able to explore and find resources, and the individual that has the power of choice can possibly find more resources than the individual that lacks the power of choice and is dependent on another individual.

This power of choice comes with the downside that an individual with the power of choice may not find more resources than the individual without the power of choice who relies on another. Yet, the individual without the power of choice has the downside that the individual they depend on may not be able to provide for them one day, whether it be because of that provider's own decision or because of a greater issue (Famine, War, Disease, etc).

Nevertheless, at the end of the day, the individual with the power of choice could resist control, flee predators, and find more resources than the individual without, and so our biology, our human nature aligns with the power of choice, of liberty. Hell, even the fucking North Korean government plays lip service to liberty with Article 67 of their constitution. The only time people ever give up their liberty, is when they believe they will die if they don't, because ultimately liberty is a tool of survival, a trait within our very nature.

Since everyone on individual level values and protects their liberty, at least to the extent they believe they can in order to survive (A North Korean couldn't even pound on Kim Jung Un's desk and rant about Americans without getting shot), and they do so because liberty is a survival trait, then we all have a right to liberty, because if we want to have a right to liberty as individuals, and we clearly do by how we protect our liberty, then we must protect the liberty of others because rights are universal and inalienable.

(The Third Right - Property).

Everyone has a right to property. This is because everyone on an individual level values and protects their property. This is because property is a fundamental part of our human nature. The concept of having sole control and possessing an object, area, or simply observable occurrence (Everything from rivers to grasslands and houses) is extremely important for various reasons.

Firstly, tools and shelters are extensions of the body, allowing for an individual to do things they couldn't otherwise do, at least not effectively, such as chop down a tree, and allowing an individual to survive where they couldn't survive otherwise. Therefore, having sole control and possession over a shelter and a set of tools increases an individual's chance of survival. Secondly, having sole control and possession over an area, a territory per-se, allows an individual to harvest resources within a zone devoid of interspecies competition, which is a massive increase to their odds of survival. With all of this in mind, the concept of property is a fundamental and innate aspect of human nature.

Since everyone an individual level values and protects their property, and to such an extent that goddamn socialists whose entire ideology revolves around reclaiming property for the common had to create a second class of property to maintain their optics, and this is all a provable aspect of human nature as a survival trait, then we must protect the property rights of others because rights are universal and inalienable.

>>507998529 (OP)
Niggers tongue my anus.

>>507999961
Not unless you 69 me.

Here it were it gets interesting we made an accounting machine

>>508000000

>>508000669
I suppose those would Jews, lol.

>premise for his right is some biological instinct to achieve another goal
>the other goal isn't among the rights
humanism is a fucking joke
id suggest turning philosophy departments into walk-in surgeries for lobotomies but well you know the punchline

>>508001071
Then what other evidence would you cite for human rights? After all, morality is, unfortunately, mostly subjective. And with the original justification for rights being an appeal to authority ("God says so"), I'm kinda strapped for evidence.

And I'm no bleeding heart — I was gonna post the punishments for people who would violate these rights, but I didn't want to look like a spamer.

>>508001292
You wouldn't understand because you aren't able to understand, and if you were able to understand you wouldn't need to ask as you would already know.

>>507998897
liberty is what military PERSON slaves get when they pull into port
men and women have freedom
not one mention of corporate personage itt

>>507998529 (OP)
Buy an ad Josie.

>>508000835
Now according to market price for refered services you need to balance it by translating market prices to known standard minimal

Otherwise you get a mess with who did what when and for free

>>508001416
Thank you for the enlightenment.

>>508001453
One of the definitions of liberty is the power of choice, and I thoroughly explained what liberty is.

>>507998529 (OP)
>>507998897
>>507998986
Yeah I like it. Simple and true. We should keep politics and laws simple and true for a better world.

>>507998529 (OP)
STFU youre NO philosopher or genius. I had an exam today so fuck off. Next time you post consider the fact that the world has dozens of cultures and that you havent seen 10% of it. Not everyone thinks like you or feels like you.

>>508001878
Thanks, man, I appreciate it. And I agree with you — A government's purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens firstly, and then afterwards, protect its sovereignty so it may continue protecting those rights. Anything more, and the government is in the wrong because the government is not an eternal father nor a charity. It is simply a societal facilitator.

>>507998529 (OP)
>>507998897
>>507998986
You have the right to do nothing, which you will fully exercise as the goyim have always done throughout history.

The powers that be have a new system that has been in the development for decades now, ready to be rolled out in the coming years. It will operate in parallel starting sometime this year and by the next decade it will be fully operational as the Agenda 2030 goals are slowly being implemented.
There will be no collapse, no violence, no uprising, no world war, no revolution, no killing of jews or politicians or other such fantasies. Instead there will be law & order, compliance and total surveillance until the very end. AI will be at the center of it all.

The Great Reset is inevitable.

>>508001887
I agree with you, as my belief system would not be agreed upon by foreigners from somewhere such as the middle east. After all, these are western ideals, they are modern justifications for the enlightenment ideas that no longer tread water as they appealed to God, and nobody gives a damn about God anymore.

>>508000552
What you wrote is high school level anon. Youre not special

>>508002157
That's a fair statement. All the blocks are in place — The NSA, the ATF, the IMF, the WEF, the standing federal army we have. We can only hope that given the nature of how societies operate, that our future society will eventually crumble under its own weight much like it's Soviet and Romanian predecessors. For while welfare, universal healthcare, and Social Security may bribe the masses into voting in those officials in the short term, the reality of such a socialistic system will obliterate the society and masses in the long term.

People can kill themselves and willingly do, so that invalidates your first point. Only men value freedom, women don't like it. Only men who are physically able and willing to exercise violence though, other men not so much.
Property in nature belongs to the strong and in civilised societies to the meb with families, as in productive men.

>>508002357
Well, of course. I'm talking to high schoolers, after all, I have to make it understandable.

>>508002709
People kill themselves as escape from hopeless pain. Suicide is an escape for people who believe that they will only suffer and nothing will change. And I think it's obvious women like liberty, regardless of whether they have the intelligence or responsibility to handle it, given the popularity of feminist bullshit.

And as for property? Walk onto a tiger's territory and start pissing and shitting. I think it will become obvious eventually that at it's most basic level, property exists as a right. Additionally, I only cite human nature to prove that everyone protects and values these rights on an individual level, because the real logic behind my arguments is that: "Because rights are universal, if you want your rights respected then you must expect the rights of others, as otherwise those rights of yours are privileges, and privileges can be revoked by an authority for any reason."

>>508001650
So, if I'm reading this right, you support a free market? Personally, so do I, as a free market allows for businesses who are shitty to eventually get outcompeted and destroyed by good businesses. Monopolies only exist through government support — A corporation can't make you buy their products, they may make it hard to buy from the competition, but they can't force you unless the government steps in and makes you themselves.

>>508002326
God means authority
God means obedience
God means servitude
God means humility
God means the giving up on one's resources
God means the refusal to fight against someone who attacks you and allowing them to take what they desire until the very last or nearly the last moment

God has social strata,classes and the most valued people in his kingdom are those who surrender the most of their free will to Him. Those are the ascetes,the monastics,the monks,the widows,medics and others who are supposed to live selflessly and receive no worldly rewards.

Life is not a right,it is a privilege and NOT everyone has the right to live neither in privilege nor in practice as ultimately every individual's right to live rests at rhe beginning of the life on their mother (primarily),which is why we venerated the virgin mary and on the caregivers during the last days. Those who were born dead,who were aborted,who died in infancy or childhood never had the privilege to live from God. This is a reality,not a fiction. It was God's will for them to die. My grandmother had 15 different illnesses at age 73 and died 1 month before turning 74. She was meant to die at that age and no one could save her. Countless people have that kind of death and it merely serves to illustrate the fact that there is a greater intention behind it all and trying to carve a stone where one says that life is sacred goes against the creator because he made us knowing what our place is and how our mission will be fulfilled. While not discarding medicine,its important to remember that only god is holy.

And as for property,theres passages in the bible about people who forsake their wealth for Christ but since that is too much for it to be done on a societal scale,it would be more important to promote fairness,equity and the pursuing

>>508001517
I'm thinking about refining the broader text (This is only core of a broader text) and getting it published and passed around IRL. I don't care about money — I just want to give power to the people. Why else would I post it to 4chan, lmao?

>>508003545
of individual and collective justice. Instead of thinking whats yours you can think about what YOU leave behind. What is left behind you. Cars. Jewellery. Money. Or it could be something else,works,discoveries,experiences or even better it could be all the people you have personally known,loved and inspired.

>>508003133
Steppe niggers and other nomadic niggers don't value property, unless you consider women and cattle property. Maybe grazing land, but most nomads don't really think how someone would own land.
The fundamental problem is that in nature, only the big strong animals get to have property. Why didn't you tell me to go into some house cat's territory? Because its not a tiger. Freedom for women is fundamentally different from men. Women want to be free so they can do anything else, but get married and have kids with some man. Most men imagine freedom as having lots of property, land, kids, wife, family and having access to upward mobility. Very few men fantasise about being stone age barbarians killing farmers and raping their women. Same way how very few women fantasize about being obedient housewives and so on.
In general, those who can, don't benefit from sharing their abilities and extending privileges to others.

>>508003545
In the religious sense, I do suppose you are correct. God is god, he is existence — If he wishes to take your life, then he will do it. In the religious sense, these are privileges. In the material world, however, these are rights. The God of Christianity made it clear that there are two separate worlds — The worldly and the holy. I speak for the worldly, not the holy. Only God can speak for the holy.

>>508003383
Back when we were allowed to dream of supercapitalism and privatize air ao air was better and privatize thought cause you could think in a copyrighted idea

We never considered the harsh reality of the plebs what for would they be even there or notice us?

>>508003718
True, and that's why the ultimate logic behind my argument is: "If you value these things individually because you view them as rights, and I know you do because it's within your nature, then you must respect the rights of others because rights must be universal. If rights are not universal, then they are privileges, and if so, then that means your privileges to life, liberty, and property can be taken away by anyone with no state to enforce your rights."

>>508003904
Lol, fair enough, man.

>>508003545
Christ tongue my anus

There seems to be some misunderstandings because I didn't publish the first part of the thesis. Therefore, I will post it so my logic is better understood.

Firstly, we need to understand what a right is, and what a right is not. A right is a protected course of action, or a set of abilities, that can never be infringed, impeded, revoked, or alienated. A right cannot be infringed just because a person believes they need to infringe it to create some beautiful world that'd make My Little Pony look like a show written by George Orwell. A right must always be protected, because rights are universal and applicable to all humans, no matter their race, gender, sexuality, religion, finances, education status, or any other discernible or indiscernible characteristic.

I have explained what a right is, so you are probably wondering what a right is not. A right is not something that can be taken away by an authority, because rights are not created by authority. Rights are created when all people on an Individual level value a course of action, or set of abilities, due to human nature, and protects that course of action or set abilities from infringement by other human beings. Said course of action or set of abilities must not infringe another right, and if it does infringe another right, then it cannot be considered a right.

So, what is a course of action or set abilities, granted to people by an authority? A course of action or set of abilities, granted to people by an authority, is a privilege, and as we all know from the public education system, privileges can be revoked for any reason. This is because privileges are created by the power of an authority — With an authority being any institution, organization, group, or even individual with power. A right, meanwhile, is a course of action or set of abilities, desired and protected on an individual level by all people, that originates from human nature and does not infringe upon other rights.

>>508004128
The fact that i value those things for myself doesn't mean I automatically value them for others. Those two aren't mutually tied together. I could believe in all those things and keep slaves and if i could, I'd have slaves regardless of weather i believe in rights. Belief in universal rights is a Christian belief. Even if the idea of universal rights predating Christianity. Only Christians practice such beliefs m

>>508004241
Yep no one believe le things are like they are until they are

>>508003574
Pedor Theil?

>>508004492
You were right in history, as in history only Christians (And Perhaps some other religions to an extent) preached human rights. I only bring this up in a secular sense because I see people champion human rights all the time, and not understand what a right is, or even understand what their rights are. I don't claim myself to be the premier expert of philosophy — Not by a longshot. I only post this so I can at least make an attempt at helping my fellow American citizens (Keyword is American Citizens: I speak universally, because while I do think these rights apply to other cultures, I know they wouldn't agree and wouldn't respect our rights, so in practice this philosophy only applies to the western world because the eastern world would not give a shit).

>>508003879
They intersect. Every single second. I think about god every single day. And often I feel him back. Do you ever feel god when interacting with the sociopathic masses? All of them want the same things its boring. I have proof that God exists and I know grosso modo what I gotta do.

>>508004424
(An expansion of the above).

Anyone who infringes upon a right is functionally stating that they do not believe that right is universally applicable. What is my justification for this statement? Simple. If I fucking steal your car, I'm functionally displaying that I don't think property is a right because I don't value your right to property evidently, and since rights must apply universally, if they don't apply to you then they are not universal. This seems like a catch-22 when it comes to enforcement, but here's the loophole: Since to violate a right is to in practice say that the violator does not believe that right is universally applicable, it means he believes it to be a privilege, and a privilege can be taken by an authority.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

If I kill you, then my actions show I believe life is a privilege and not a right, and since I believe life to be a privilege through my act of homicide, then I forfeit my right to life in exchange for a privilege to live. A privilege that can be taken by an authority.

Like, oh, I dunno, a fucking legal system.

Basically, the enforcement process is simple. If you violate the right, or rights, of another, your actions are to be considered proof that you believe the rights you violated to be privileges, and so as a result you forfeit your possession of those rights you violated, in exchange for privileges to the courses of action or sets of abilities that were once protected as rights.

And since privileges can be taken by an authority...Have fun explaining to the court why you and your Pakistani migrant bodies raped a 13yo British girl to death.

>>508004311
Tu intai sa te rogi lui Dumnezeu si apoi daca poti lui Hristos,ca altfel dai de dracu. Nu vezi ca astia sunt toti pocaiti? Ei inteleg prost aproape totul si mai sunt si rai,au duhuri spurcate. Duhul mandriei,al dusmaniei al urii al invidiei.

>>508005112
I understand, and I respect your right to the liberty to believe in God. I'm more of an undecided person, to be honest. I believe there is a creator, I just don't know who he is. So, instead, I'll do my best to act righteous, because any God worth worship would respect such an endeavor if done honestly.

>>507998529 (OP)
Locke and his followers most essential mistake is believing people were like them.
They never envisioned
>niggers and other sundry subhumans
>feminists
>race traitors
>free white males that would cede even an iota of power to the other three, or to jews
and so their ideology is failed.

>>507998529 (OP)
Convex vectors are not a plane there are not roghtbo ma y hats jdueo freemasonic Conan artist shit God is not dead inbred you see not educated stop sucking jew dick gay ass peterswine satanic monglod tesla amrconi hertz votla r foster who's r interviews are on youtueb and amch proved the container and there is a vault you dumbas low intwl mongoloid idiot asswipe satanic reality denying pig dumbass stop using twisted satanic baohometic Christopher stop pointed thi shit out fake made up words and misattributed shit that's correct decisive actions ou ar inbred shit eating you adl a I shit hias haddash and juden larp shit does. Ot work here reality denying satanic jewmocracy protocols of zion doing protocls of sion spewing cannibal vampire baby fucking abramoff boeveesy Adam starchild and epstein and dutrouxs network pf digital hell out of our zone stupid bitch

>>507998529 (OP)
>The First Right - Life
Can't kill all the idiots who need to be dead
>The Second Right - Liberty
Can't make the idiots behave the way you want them to behave
>The Third Right - Property
This one's all right.

>>508005593
You are truly special, my friend; Your mind is big, and your mouth even bigger.

>>507998529 (OP)
I want to add 1 more.
(The Fourth Right - Revenge)
When somebody fucks you over out of selfishness or evil intent, and being fucked over in this way can make you lose your liberty, your property or even your life... then it becomes not only necessary but morally correct to destroy the people who intend to fuck you over. If they don't value my life or my property or my liberty then I should take revenge against them and destroy their property, and their liberty and their life. Revenge is how we deal with those who do not obey our rights. Violent revenge is an absolute necessity for a functional society.

>>508005675
A fair statement, and it leads to why I believe there needs to be a state. A state who kills the idiots who violates our rights, for if an idiot violates a right, they are saying it's a privilege that can be taken away with authority (Nice way of saying power/gun point), and so it's only fair that we indulge that belief of theres via firing squad.

>>507998529 (OP)
Quality effortposting. Saving this to read after work.

Thank you very nice atheist bill of rights OP

>>508005816
Absolutely, and I also think, that if applicable, a judicial system should enforce such. Yet, if there is a conspiracy amongst the judiciary on a local, state, and federal level, to not enforce our rights, then it is our right and duty to uphold the laws as written, and if impeded by the state, then revolt against that government and create a new one. Our rights shall not be infringed — I didn't list all of the civil rights that descend from the core rights I brought up above, but the right to revolution and the right to mob justice in the event of a conspiratorial state/judiciary are ultimately descendant from those core rights and necessary for their existence.

>>508001292
'Rights' as a free floating idea is retarded. It only works as a concession the state accepts in it's treatment of citizens.

>>508006157
You're welcome, lol, I appreciate it. I'm tired of Communists fucking us over because our original justifications for these rights were based upon religious appeals to authority.

>>507998529 (OP)
Jews don't believe in life, liberty and property for anyone other than their people.
So we will be in an eternal struggle for real liberalism as they conflate it with trans children and homosexuality.

So the natural response to this is National socialism, the third position which causes them to start throwing out buzz words like, fascist, antisemite and many others.

>>508005934
Hell yeah, man, I've also got two other lengthier additions deeper in the thread to add to the above. >>508004424
>>508005226

>>508005545
I also like to mention that it also, unfortunately, got crushed when the anti-federalist ideas in America were obliterated in the American Civil War. To keep things short: The cultural DNA of the northern states is puritanism which evolved into federalism and whigism. And as it turns out, a population already predisposed culturally to the idea of government benevolence and moral absolutism makes a great pool of people to draft from as well as heavily tax to arm the draftees.

>>507998529 (OP)
>Everyone has a right to life
No, they don't.
>Everyone has a right to liberty.
No, they don't.
>Everyone has a right to property.
No, they don't.
0/10, see me after class, retard.
You clearly haven't paid attention at all during your life. You don't have rights. You have jailers.

>>508005494
Everything you said sounds like it came out of a franc-masonic agenda. Free masons are atheists and they literally fight against the military and the church. Explicitly so

>>508006799
Well those jailers give me a wide berth because if they get close enough for me to stab them in the neck they wont survive.

>>508006214
That's a fair statement, because otherwise the state will just take them when it's beneficial. We need to arm the general population and equip them to such an extent that infringement of civil rights is equatable to Domestic Mutually Assured Destruction. Now, there is more depth here, but the general idea of mine is to put the mob and elites into a deadlock wherein both will have to make concessions and keep to those concessions, while also giving a legal framework that explicitly explains what those concessions are: (I.E: The citizens provide the state a monopoly on violence, and the state provides the citizens a comprehensive list of natural rights. And neither can infringe upon the other's monopoly or rights without domestic mutually assured destruction.)

>>508007067
Great. Go do us all a favor and go walk around Washington DC for a few hours, please.

>>508006887
Well, I've always had some sympathies with Ethan Allen's political beliefs, so I suppose I also disdain both an organized state church and a federal standing army (Last part mostly comes from George Washington's final address than Ethan Allen desu).

>>508006799
I do have rights, but as you said, I have jailers who infringe them. There are ways to eventually, and slowly, with lots of pain and suffering, turning things back to the way they are supposed to be (For a while before the jailers come back again), but for now, you are right. I have jailers, and they infringe upon my natural rights with force.

>>507998529 (OP)
Except in dutch we have a saying the one mans dead is the other its bread or reversed the one mans bread is anothers dead. You cannot fit for example the entirity of africa into europe this would be inherently immoral to the europeans

That was an interesting read OP, Thanks

I'm not going to share my opinion since I'm a philosophylet and can't understand shit about these themes, but I say I agree with you.

Also it's refreshing to see a thread on pol with the word "jew" written so rarely. I guess this place must have been like this back in the days, pre 2016

>>508007187
I'm kind of lazy. I'm not going to waste the energy. I'm pretty sure this shitshow will collapse on it's own without my intervention. Trying to fight a powerful enemy directly is a big waste of time. Instead it's better to relax and allow the enemy to tire himself. Sort of a rope a dope strategy. Passively doing the bare minimum so that society collapses and all the bad leaders hang. By simply doing nothing, all of my enemies will be hanged eventually. It's simply fate. Bad men make enemies, and those enemies hang the bad men. It's just a matter of time. They always dig their own grave by being cunts. They could have been nice to us but they had to be cunts. Every time.

>>508007587
I agree — Because while these rights apply to all humans, not all humans will respect them, and if those humans are to treat the rights proscribed to them as privileges, then those privileges are to be taken away.

>>508005226
Here's a more detailed explanation written by me. ^

>>507998529 (OP)
>>507998897
Nice. That’s retarded. I have never met a “Man” or “Men” I have met Germans, Americans, Anglos, never this “Man” you speak of.
You would agree different individuals with differing conditions require different treatments to reach optimal or tolerable outcomes yes?
So too with politics.

Humanistic enlightenment era is the sign of civilizational Autumn. To have it once is tragic to revisit it is foolish.

>>508007748
Absolutely. Socialism cannot last forever — Because simply put, socialism does not reward the exceptional, and as it turns out, the exceptional are those who would have the means of doing what you just described.

>>507998529 (OP)
Ai slop, fuck off

>>508007419
Hey, buddy, if I drop you in Africa, surrounded on one side by niggers, and on other side by lions, which group do you think will offer you these imaginary rights you think you have first? Give it a big think, 95 IQ chad.

>>508007882
I don't believe in equitable outcomes. I believe in equality of opportunity, as everyone has the natural right of liberty (The power of choice). Mind you, this liberty can be infringed, such as within our socialist state, but it doesn't go away. It is simply oppressed — Waiting to be exercised by those who have had it oppressed. And as for that last point, the enlightenment, whilst bringing many problems, has also brought many goods. We must remedy the problems and keep the goods.

>>508008097
Run this by ChatGPT and it'll make suggestions on improvement. That alone is proof enough it wasn't written by AI.

>>508008145
Ideally, a state would, in a functional society. In a world without a state that enforces these rights (And even with a state that those, you'll still have to enforce them because the state will try to take them eventually — It's a Republic if you can keep it, after all), then it is my responsibility by virtue of liberty (The power of choice) to enforce them. Though, realistically, I would die. Oh well. Life is hard, doesn't mean natural rights don't exist.

>>508007615
You're welcome, man, I did it for people like you and me. And I don't blame you, I barely understand philosophy at all. But I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Here's a quick TL;DR in case you stumble across a commie, or their National Socialist breathen:

-----TL;DR:
1). A right is a course of action, or set of abilities, that all people value and protect on an individual level, because of human nature.
2). A course of action or set of abilities that infringes upon a right, is immediately disqualified from being considered a right.
3). A right cannot be revoked or infringed for any reason because a right must apply to all human beings.

>>507998529 (OP)
>Since everyone on individual level values and protects their life, and they do so because our nature is wired for us to value and protect our life, then we all have a right to life, because if we want to have the right to live as individuals, and we clearly do by how we protect our lives, then we must protect the lives of others because rights are universal and inalienable.

bravo! circular reasoning at its finest

>>508007234
>No state church or army

Everything that comes out of minds like these is not only anti christian,anti God anti righteousness etc,nor is it important that they are incomprehensible to an european or asian,who are mere cogs in their national machines and proudly so because nation=family BUT its also self destructive through the immense divisions that it sows. Who are americans? Whites? The new latinos? The asians? Whichever church has the most power? Your system has only 2 ends: inner collapse from inner conflicts caused by racial ethnic and especially values,conflicts of ideals which stem from the philosophy and religion of the peoples holding them,or a global hegemony. A nation that knows who it is BY BLOOD BY FAITH BY SOIL etc. Will never have inner conflicts and stress like that,nor will it try to dominate everyone and attempt to destroy every single rival. If the US declares war on china for example,in the absence of a provocation especially it will just further prove that the american experiment has failed.

And one of the main reasons which hasnt been said yet is the fact that you were founded by puritans who think they are fulfilling scripture. You still think that. God doesnt work through you or like that.

>>508004424
Believing in "rights" is just coping with democracy being a shit system. A right can most succinctly be defined as anything you believe should be protected from the political process within a democratic state.
>>508008160
Do animals have the same rights?

>>508009030
It isn't circular because the statement itself it already assumes we agree that rights are universal and inalienable. I provided prior explanations for why rights are universal in the following:

>>508004424
Here's the indepth explanation. TL;DR: A right is a right, because it is a course of action or set of abilities that all people on an individual level protect and value. How do we know that all people will value and protect this course of action or set of abilities? Simple — Because said course of action or set of abilities will descend from the very nature of humanity. So, to summarize, a right is a course of action or set of abilities that our human nature compels us all to protect and value. So, because we all protect and value these courses of action and sets of abilities, we must assure that other people can exercise those courses of action and sets of abilities, because otherwise those courses of action and sets of abilities as a whole can be infringed by anybody, and I obviously doubt that you would want a random person breaking into your house and stealing your shit, as you in your eyes have a right to your own property.

>>508009645
No, a right is a course of action or set of abilities that human nature compels us all to value individually. Therefore, if we want others to protect and value our rights, then we must protect and value theirs, and if they infringe our rights we must punish them.

As for the last point, well, I would say no because human beings have a right to life and we need to eat, so to hell with the animals.

>>507998529 (OP)
>>507998897
>>507998986
Have you recognized that enlightenment ideals and these rights and liberties only apply to educated white men of good moral character with a stake in society?

>>508011045
I do understand that was absolutely a rule back in the day. Nowadays, I'm personally moreso in favor for the universality of rights, instead of a selectiveness, because a right is universal, it cannot be selective. However, the good thing is those that infringe upon rights, in practice admit they view them as privileges, and so, with that in mind, privileges can be revoked by an authority (Basically, a dude or dudes with power, usually guns).

So, to those who infringe upon rights, have fun explaining why you stabbed a kid to death at a track meet because he was white, lmao. We got a noose and a tree waiting for you.

>>508010146
There is no universal human nature. What you call human nature is just a happenstance of evolution.

Let's say I use my "right" to liberty to selectively breed a domesticated population of humans that don't value liberty and just want to be owned and work. Is liberty still a right?

You can claim you're appealing to human nature but in reality you're appealing to something much loftier.

>>508011440
>because a right is universal, it cannot be selective.
You just said it didn't apply to animals. Is that not you admitting you view these rights as the privileges of being "human"?

>>507998529 (OP)
He's not dead. He's restin. Pinin for the fjords.

>>507998529 (OP)
>This response occurs when we see a threat.
so, if you don't see the threat, it's not a violation of the right

>>508011875
Beautiful plumage - the Norwegian Blue.

>>508011778
A human right is universal to humans. I think this is a problem with me rushing the philosophy project of mine because I'm usually super fucking lazy. A human right is a course of action or set of abilities that all humans individually view as something that cannot be infringed upon, or a right. But if we are to have rights individually, then we must respect those rights collectively, because otherwise anyone can infringe upon our rights.

TL;DR: I'm justifying human rights through mutual interest.

>>508005545
Yeah, the core belief of the west of not judging others has allowed shitty people and shit behaviours to fester unchallenged.

>>508012324
My brother in Christ, that's not that point. The point is: "If you are to have rights, then others are to have rights." And that references to biology is me basically saying: "And I know you believe you have rights, because your body compels you to believe that way."

^ This all comes from the fact that I improperly structured my shit when creating an entire new moral axiom from the ground up that could be understood by utter retards. As a result, some parts, not the whole, but some parts inadvertently flirt with circular reasoning even if the argument is not entirely circular but only partially in a few select areas.

>>508012675
>A human right is universal to humans
But why? Why is it universal to humans but doesn't apply to other animals?

What if other species of man still existed like neanderthals or denisovans; would they have rights? What happens when humans speciate again; will all of our decedent species have rights?

>>507998529 (OP)
>>507998897
>>507998986
Nice. I always understood the universal and inalienable rights as those that exist in a state of nature. If you can mentally transport yourself to a state of nature, they become almost a matter of "common sense".

>life
Your life is yours as long you can defend it from bandits and pirates.

>property
Your property is yours as long you can defend it from bandits and pirates.

>liberty
Your freedom is your as long you can defend it from bandits and pirates.

Freedom of association and weapons are implied, of course.

Problems arise with scaling, i.e. taking it out of a state of nature "reality" and back into the "real world" (the various abstractions and contingent givens in the world). A lot of is overthinking and re-inventing the wheel in a way. The first states to arise from a state of nature (i.e. anarchy or despotism) were nothing more than hand-shake agreements between warrior alliances.

>>508013351
So long as they are apart of the Homo Genus, then yes.

>>508013408
Thanks man, I appreciate it. And I agree with you, because I bet you 20$ that no liberal would allow you to take their money and give it Tyrone if they needed that money to live.

>>508013351
This applies to humans, because philosophy and morality is for human beings. Animals don't give a goddamn. This is a rulebook for humans based on mutual interest.

Anyways, sorry I forgot to include this in the original counterargument. I don't want to make it seem like I'm cherry picking — That's faggot shit.

>>508013934
>This applies to humans, because philosophy and morality is for human beings. Animals don't give a goddamn.
So it doesn't apply to niggers.

>>508013080
It wouldn't be a problem if the population was decent.
The American founders and French revolutionaries naively thought shitty people would be ejected from their subsequent societies, naturally or otherwise, and failed to follow up. The plan was always to deport the deplorables if they didn't self-deport due to conditions being inhospitable to them.

>>508014110
Maybe in your eyes — You may not view as human, and that is your right. Niggers can speak, and niggers look like humans, and the genetics of a nigger (Perhaps unfortunately) suggest they are human.

I'm sure you can connect the pieces. You're not stupid, after all. You're just tired of black people getting away with all but sedition and treason (<-- And they sometimes get away with that, as evidenced by Kamala Harris's very existence, lmao).

Good thing is you can kill niggers who attempt to steal your shit in my framework. Chin up, my klansman brother.

>>508002116
Very idealistic. When is the last time any government functioned like that?

>>508002678
>welfare, universal healthcare, and Social Security may bribe the masses into voting
Isn't this part of the "social contract"? Which is already retired to the point that it will break down within our lifetime?

>>508014995
Yes, it already is, and thank god it is breaking down. That shit is paid through taxes, and compelled taxes are robbery (Theft via coercion), and therefore immoral.

>>507998529 (OP)
>this will be short
459 billion lines of text
Nope

>>508014753
Not since the gilded age and after the American civil war. Unfortunately, the citizens must be armed in mass, and a state must not have a federal standing army, for civil rights to exist.

>>508003133
>Because rights are universal, if you want your rights respected then you must expect the rights of others, as otherwise those rights of yours are privileges, and privileges can be revoked by an authority for any reason
We already have a break here. We're in a 2 tier system. Poor. And rich. As is reflected in the judicial system.

>>508015189
My brother in Christ, it's an entire moral axiom, with corresponding philosophy. I've condensed it as best I can — Please, enlighten me on the average length of a philosophy text.

>>508015258
And that's why, my friend, we need to change the system. Revolution, civil disobedience, parallel social systems, Bezmonovian demoralization of the current liberal cultural institutions to swing rightwards, our Republican democracy — Whatever the hell you wish to do to change it, hell all of them, but the system must be changed to reflect the fact we have these rights.

>>508004424
>A right is a protected course of action, or a set of abilities, that can never be infringed, impeded, revoked, or alienated.
Between the cops (ENFORCEMENT) not understanding law. And the arbitrary fuckery of the court system. Law sometimes reads like people are fucking speaking in tongues. Add to this HOW MUCH $$$ did you spend on your lawyer, and what mood is your judge in today? What political bent does your judge have. The concept of rights is so erroded at this point, it's fucking scary.

>>508015112
Now you are veering into sovereign citizen territory. That stuff just doesn't hold up in the court system. And I see zero recourse in terms of changing tax law. So many judges would just say, I am not considering this case. Then what? You appeal and refile and all this? Good Lord. The $$$$. The TIME!!

>>508015403
Honestly im just shitfaced drunk in the florida keys right now and lazy

>>507998529 (OP)
>>507998897
>>507998986
All three are protected by the Ten Commandments.

>>508015112
>>508016433
I'm no law scholar, obviously.
But where would you even find a lawyer or a firm that would take a case like that.

>>508014750
I'm just saying that from a philosophical point of view there is nothing special about being human. The idea that white people have to wait for a nigger to violate their "rights" before they can defend themselves is retarded.

Let's say there is an island with 100 whites and 100 niggers. Each night, 1 nigger violently rapes and murders 1 white and each morning the whites lynch that nigger. Should that continue until everyone is dead except the last nigger or should the whites, at some point, realize that the niggers really aren't of the same moral weight as them and need to be destroyed? Human rights are for cucks.

>>508016550
This is like claiming democracy was created in 10,000BC.

>>508015975
Yeah, man, it's complete bullshit. We're gonna have to find and combine many methods to build back up our rights due to how eroded they are. A short synopsis:

1). Subvert the leftist cultural institutions with Bezmonovian tactics.
2). Create parallel systems of information for us right-wing people (Make them honest — It will suck and hurt like hell when our side fucks up and we gotta admit it. But we need trust of the general population.)
3). We must arm our families and close friends. The goal is not revolution but domestic mutually assured destruction so as to prevent the liberal state from lashing out when they realize we are using there tactics against them. We must force their hand clandestinely to meet us head to head in a cultural, not civil, war, and they will assuredly lose that war.
4). We must inform our friends, family, and neighbors briefly but comprehensively of the situation and persuade them to agree with us.
5). Once we have achieved enough influence, we need to start voting in, in the LOCAL level, DAs, Judges, Sheriffs, Councilmen, and Mayors who agree with us. Sheriffs can choose not to enforce a law, judges have judicial review, DAs can choose not to take something to court, and councilmen/mayors can pass local legislation. Zoning boards and school boards are good targets too.
6). We must inform our people of jury nullification en masse, rapidly, and anonymously, so that everyone can know, and so, no one can be selected out of jury duty for knowing.
7). We must set up some sort of consensual mutual aid amongst friends and family, and promote others do the same with their friends and family.
8). We must do our best to make ourselves as independent as possible and encourage others do the same.
9). We must improve ourselves in every way possible and to the best of our abilities so we can be independent from as many peps as possible. The less people you are dependent, the less people that can be bought by the state and intelligensia.

>>508016433
I never said that it is illegal, simply immoral. It would never hold up in court because the state can pass an immoral law, and an immoral law is a law nevertheless, thus still legal.

You retarded ideology has failed. You cannot maintain a nation While replacing the majority of its demographics.

They do not and will not have the same ideology. You are a faggot, kys.

>>508016675
*Discovered.
God Created Everything. :)

>>508016652
I think the humans should launch an investigation (Or, more simply, spy on the niggers) to see if they are all culpable. If they are all culpable, then kill them all. I mean, hell, it's as simple as that.

>>508009842
>It isn't circular because the statement itself it already assumes we agree that rights are universal and inalienable
This is almost a textbook definition on what circular logic is. You’re attempting to prove something by assuming it’s already true. History has shown universalism is not universal, at all.

>>508016589
Probably none, lol. Law is law regardless of its morality. It's our job as a citizenry with natural rights, provided that there are legal means (I listed some here: >>508016883), to work within the system when possible to throw out immoral laws. If that cannot work, then we must revolt and form a new government.

>>508017203
Ok, you investigate and find that no individual nigger is culpable in any other individual nigger's crime. They all perfectly respect your rights right up until they rape and murder one of you.

>>508016883
>1). Subvert the leftist cultural institutions with Bezmonovian tactics.
>2). Create parallel systems of information for us right-wing people (Make them honest — It will suck and hurt like hell when our side fucks up and we gotta admit it. But we need trust of the general population.)
>3). We must arm our families and close friends. The goal is not revolution but domestic mutually assured destruction so as to prevent the liberal state from lashing out when they realize we are using there tactics against them. We must force their hand clandestinely to meet us head to head in a cultural, not civil, war, and they will assuredly lose that war.
>4). We must inform our friends, family, and neighbors briefly but comprehensively of the situation and persuade them to agree with us.
>5). Once we have achieved enough influence, we need to start voting in, in the LOCAL level, DAs, Judges, Sheriffs, Councilmen, and Mayors who agree with us. Sheriffs can choose not to enforce a law, judges have judicial review, DAs can choose not to take something to court, and councilmen/mayors can pass local legislation. Zoning boards and school boards are good targets too.
>6). We must inform our people of jury nullification en masse, rapidly, and anonymously, so that everyone can know, and so, no one can be selected out of jury duty for knowing.
>7). We must set up some sort of consensual mutual aid amongst friends and family, and promote others do the same with their friends and family.
>8). We must do our best to make ourselves as independent as possible and encourage others do the same.
>9). We must improve ourselves in every way possible and to the best of our abilities so we can be independent from as many peps as possible. The less people you are dependent, the less people that can be bought by the state and intelligensia.
HOLY SHITBALLS!!!!! Speaking of, I think mine are tingling.
That is exactly what our country USED TO FUCKING BE LIKE.

>>508017213
Okay, once again my fault for not including the first part of the text. All of shit within the first message of the thread comes after an introductory portion called "The Presumptions" wherein I lay the basis of the axiom and explain what a right is and is not, and why rights are universal. Since the core body of the argument in the first message comes after that first introductory part of the text wherein I (At least attempted) proved the universality of rights, I assume one agrees with me by the time they get to the actual rights that descend from the axiom. So, since I also wrote the entire thing with the intention of it being as understandable as possible, I didn't elaborate anymore, and inadvertently created quasi-circular reasoning as I fucked up the formatting royally so I could make my post more approachable to 4channers.

>>508016883
>>508017435
Massive whitepill that anyone even thinks like this anymore. Good Lord I miss having the WW2 gen still around. They genuinely believed things like WRITING YOUR CONGRESSMAN was in effective in any way. The disconnect between government and Mr average family man citizen is so massive. It's run away from us.
I've listened even to recordings of very elderly Civil War vets, WW1 vets, and recorded interviews I did with my grandfathers. The way they saw this country was so vastly different than anyone now presently sees it. It was a completely different country.

>>508017857
>I assume
That’s the problem and why your logic is circular. That is why the enlightenment is dead. The liberals just haven’t realized it yet.

>>507998529 (OP)
Thinking of things in terms of rights is a fundamental mistake. What you deem as rights are actually just the negative space in between moral responsibilities. What we're born with isn't rights, but rather obligations. Towards truth, towards the good, towards reason, towards our fellow men, towards all life in general. When we fulfill those obligations, that's when we're allowed to act in a way that agrees with those imaginary rights. For example, preventing somebody from speaking isn't a problem because it's violating his right to speak, but it's a problem because it means the individual doing the censoring is in violation of his responsibility to the truth by trying to silence his opposition rather than proving it wrong. The distinction is important, because these "rights" come from a small minded perspective of entitlement and are subject to constant expansion. Everyone is always trying to broaden their "rights" or minimize the "rights" of others, Because every "right" or "liberty" that they have must inherently tramples on the "rights" or "liberties" others. As an example, your "right" to tattoo your face treads on my "right" to live in a society that isn't polluted with that kind of stupidity. It leads to a nonsense worldview that contradicts itself, inevitably. On the contrary, the understanding that everyone is born with the same moral obligation towards truth and well-being leaves no room for argument, ambiguity or expansion. It means that you have no "right" to tattoo yourself at all, because tattooing yourself isn't in line with right reason and violates your responsibilities towards reason and well-being. Responsibilities over rights solves every conundrum involving the concept of rights, and is a far more accurate framing of how things are and ought to be.

>>>/bant/

>>508017599
Could be me but this is African tribal think. Just get together with your local fellas and do a night raid on your neighboring tribe and cut them all down with machetes. To some extent it has to be taken case by case. Otherwise you've lost the plot and gone ferral native American/African stone age barbarian tribal bloodbath.
That's not to say white people don't bend back the other way too much.
We are incompatible and shouldn't be living near one another. But that ship has sailed.

>>508007748
>do nothing
>lose
Ah, the tried and tested conservative game plan.

>>508011440
>I do understand that was absolutely a rule back in the day. Nowadays, I'm personally moreso in favor for the universality of rights, instead of a selectiveness, because a right is universal, it cannot be selective.
Leaving that rule is what created all the problems we presently endure...

>>508008160
The more I think about it the more I think the problem with rights is that rights are given to people who have no interest in defending them.

>>507998529 (OP)
Read any Pufendorf?