I don’t generally engage in discourse with nihilists. Clearly, this is someone who isn’t interested in discourse.

Do rights exist?

I have finally accepted that there are no rights. There is no non-aggression axiom, it’s all bullshit the randroids are trying to shove down our throats.

I am going to show you that there is not a single proof for natural law, Randian quasi-religious nonsense, or the allmighty NAP.

Natural law theories have been crap all along, it is just something easy to invent, easy to espouse and easy to explain:

God/nature/reason gave us rights, so we can make society better

I still haven’t heard a convincing argument that proves the axiom of self-ownership, or the axiom of anything. We must get rid of these proto-religious concepts we call rights.

I challenge everyone to try to prove me wrong, try to prove the existence of rights, try to prove the axiom of the non-aggression axiom or the axiom of self-ownership.

Did I miss the part where he “showed me that there is not a single proof for natural law”? Because it seems to me that he didn’t demonstrate any such thing. That said, I have no intention of “proving” any of these concepts; I’m neither a moral philosopher or a pedantic academic.

Look, if you want to have a discussion with people, you have to do more than assert the correctness of your position. Last I checked, “proof by volume” or “proof by repetition” is not a valid argument. I might recommend starting with these so-called unconvincing arguments has, and then describing the process by which one determines them to be “crap.”

Perhaps, assuming that rights are “given” is the first mistake. Reason doesn’t “give” rights to anyone. Also, only utilitarians honestly believe the consequentialist crap about how we have rights in order to “make society better,” and once we’ve gone down that road, we’ve clearly equivocated, because a utilitarian right is really more of a mob-rule privilege, it’s certainly not the same sort of “right” that is currently in question.

A “right” is merely the measure by which we determine the appropriateness (or inappropriateness) of human action. If nothing is appropriate, or inappropriate for that matter, why bother tilting against the ideas? This is sort of a variant of the estoppel principle.

If there is no such thing as a right, then you’re wasting wind by denying the existence thereof; if you believe yourself to be wronged or injured by my attempt to exercise what I understand to be “rights,” then you are at least tacitly claiming some sort of right, or privilege, of your own, which nicely invalidates the categorical “there is no such thing as a right”.