And Just Like That

lol

Well, yes. Absolute freedom means Anarchism. Anarchism will eventually just lead to either a monarchy, Plutocracy or an Oligarchy

Where do you get off calling freedom anarchy?

No one is calling for absolute freedom.

We have a Constitution which is the foundation for all law in our country. We have laws that we abide by.

We have a bill of rights, those rights are unalienable.

Leftists say that speech is not totally free. They say you cannot shout fire in a crowded theater, but you actually can if there is a fire. You can not defame or liable a person, however if you prove your claim it is justified.

The right to keep and bear arms is unalienable. Homicide is illegal, wether you use a gun, knife or a rock, unless you are in fear of your life or serious bodily injury, then it is justified homicide.

Yet many Republicans have said (Including Abbey_normal) That freedom is absolute. And after all, gun owners have the right to use their firearms how they please. So either freedom isn't absolute, or Anarchy is a good thing

Human rights are absolute, and universal. Individuals in nations that oppress them...

Well here is how we handled it.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

If the 2nd Amendment were repealed I would still have the G-d given right to defend myself using the most effective tool at my disposal.

some human rights are absolute. Some aren't. Too much of a certain human right (like safety) can lead to an Authoritarian state. Too much of another (like freedom) can lead to Anarchy. Those rights need to be put in place in moderation. Of course, most human rights (Like the right to a trial, the right to no torture, the right to equality) are absolute.

Who told you safety is a human right.

You are just making things up. Anarchists do not believe in freedom.

The last three ate English common law and not natural.

We all have the right to protection by law.

Anarchists don't believe in freedom? Yes. Totalitarians don't believe in security? Yes. Extremists always want what is best for themselves.

So back in the cave man days the cops protected your ancestors?

A natural right is one that has always existed. Such as self defence, providing for yourself, believing what you do, saying what you want, associating with those you please, being secure in your self and your possessions, things that you can do for your self with the help of G-d.

You think anarchists believe in freedom. Look at the 2 free enclaves that have been stolen this last year. They immediately found the pecking order just like the uncivilized beasts they are.

So you want a totalitarian boss to give you security. That doesn't make it a natural right.

You seem to be the extremist, you want everything provided so you can have what you want at the expense of others.

I want nothing from you at all. I will abide by the law and live my life as I please.

'They immediately found a pecking order'. Yes. That's why Anarchism sucks. Not only is it, well, Anarchy, but a pecking order will always be established. It never lasts.

I never said I want Totalitarianism. Name one place in my comments where I said that.

And the human rights are not natural rights. Never have been. They are things all people should have access to. We have a legal system, so a right to a fair trial and the right to protection. We've had problems with discrimination, so equality is a human right. We've had problems with Authoritarianism, so freedom and privacy are human rights, as well as democracy. We've had problems with genocide, so asylum, life, and no torture are also human rights. There is also the right to move, the right to own things, The right to a bed and food. Workers rights. The right to a nationality. The right to a marriage and a family. Of course, no unfair detainment. The right to social security, the right to a break, the right to education, the right to copyright, the right to equal opportunities and responsibilities. All of these are human rights as listed by the UN. Of course, this isn't complete, there are 30.

And, no. I don't want everything provided for me. I can sustain myself just fine. Plus, I get the added benefit of free (at the point of delivery) medical care because of the NHS. I want things to be provided to others at the expense of people richer than me and people with my economic status.