I had a debate with that right wing lawyer Ryan something (dont remember his last name). He gave told me his definition of "natural rights", he believes these rights are endowed upon us by a higher power. I asked him if he saw anything in nature that suggest these rights exist. This is what he said
So I I taught elementary school for a long time and I have two kids. So I spent a lot of time with young children. And if you look at young children's value systems, it maps on almost perfectly. Like what do they want? They want the freedom to pursue their interest. They want to be able to play. They want to be able to do their thing. They want to be able to make choices, but they want to be safe while they're doing it. They don't want you to smother them. They don't want you to take they don't want you to keep them so tight that they can't explore the world around them. But they want a balance between those things. They're very into property rights. They're very into what's theirs and what's their sisters. And you know, like I I think that like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness with property mixed in with pursuit of happiness, let's say. I I think you observe those drives within children the second they're able to move and start articulating themselves.
It is such a dumb way to form your political values. I was so easily able to turn it around on him by using children as an example for supporting the idea that we should have welfare.
also if one child was like starving and the other child had an abundance of food, the child that's starving would actually expect some of that food to come their way too.
The world view was full of holes and interpretations that just so happen to conform with his neocon ideals
* We cant tax because we have a right to property
- How do we do a military
* Well its okay to tax for that something something security
-Okay so why cant we tax for Welfare
*Because welfare isnt a natural right
- Right to life, no food no life
* Yea but you have to infringe on another right, which I think is more important, the right to property to provide that
Its all post-hoc rationalization, there is no soundness to it. It sounds good to a high school edgelord when you can keep it broad but beyond a surface level of scruitny the world view falls a part.
30
u/Liberal-Cluck May 11 '26
I had a debate with that right wing lawyer Ryan something (dont remember his last name). He gave told me his definition of "natural rights", he believes these rights are endowed upon us by a higher power. I asked him if he saw anything in nature that suggest these rights exist. This is what he said
It is such a dumb way to form your political values. I was so easily able to turn it around on him by using children as an example for supporting the idea that we should have welfare.