[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
somebody else's right to something else

[/ QUOTE ]

Like what? How is this derived?

[/ QUOTE ]

The same way that a 'right to property' is derived. You say 'right to property', I say (for example) 'right to liberty', or 'right of basic sustenance', or 'right to a ninth grade education'. Why is one automatically more important and encompassing a wider scope than the other?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there's nothing holy about property rights, it's logically consistent to violate them

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't even make sense to me. They either exist or they don't (once again, not as an objective truth, but in practice). Even if I were to concede that some other positive rights existed (which I never would)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you're saying it yourself: the right to property is not an objective truth. Then, in the next sentence, you go on to say that according to you, it's the only positive right in the world. Who made you the arbiter?

[ QUOTE ]
who decides the hierarchy of rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Society, ldo?

[ QUOTE ]
What you are describing (positive rights) is a matter of personal values masquerading as objective truth, which Kaj accused me of.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the right to property is a positive right that is an objective truth, but every other right is a personal value? That probably doesn't even make any sense to you, because we've already had a long debate about abortion, and an unwanted fetus clearly violates *some* right or other. Based on your own worldview, ergo, there's at least one other positive right, the right to life; you can try to shoehorn it into property, but that's gonna be as tortured on that end as Roe v. Wade was on the other.

Now, what prevents me from having a consistently logical belief that there are X other rights that are equally important, and society's role as arbiter includes coming up with a way to judge their relative importance when they interact with each other?