Hacker News Reader

What differentiates "rights" from the pure freedom to do anything we are physically/mentally/emotionally capable of? That seems like government (of any size, e.g. a tribal council) introducing law into chaos. I'm not sure how one differentiates a government preventing murder and inhibiting speech with that definition.

View on HN

You’re over thinking it and also missing the point. Again it’s not about the output so much as the concept.

You’re making a vapid argument to try and confront a profound idea.

It's making demands of the natural world that the natural world doesn't have to obey. These natural rights are only that way because specific groups of people agree on them, making them unnatural, or, as I said previously, it implies that absolute freedom is your natural right. If that's not the case I'd ask you to explain where natural rights end and chaos begins.

Where people agree it’s self evident.

So neither innate or natural because it requires a culture to agree. We're on the same page.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com