Is it the case that I have an obligation to act towards X in a certain way solely because X has a "right" to be treated in a certain way? That would require quite a multiplicity of rights. Perhaps I should act in a moral way for reasons which don't require that I assume the existence of rights which cannot be infringed. — Ciceronianus the White

I have a right to be treated with dignity and you have a duty to treat me that way.

And we can make it more clear than that. If you kidnap me and hold me against my will, you have violated my right to live freely. Such would be the case regardless of what the law is.

Speaking of dignity, are we. Good bye again, this time for good. — ernestm

You're a fraud, and I don't mean that as an ad hom. I mean that you pontificate about so many subjects, but you aren't able at all to really respond to any real question about what you're talking about. You therefore create the initial appearance that you have something to say, but in short order it becomes clear that you can't do anything but cut and paste, and most often just citing yourself. You even resort to name calling when really called down on something. I think I was referred to as an Assad like baby killer or some other stupidity.

I've gone so far as to enumerate questions and ask for enumerated responses from you just so I could avoid your spilling thousands of words onto the screen, but that didn't happen. Now you've excommunicated me, but I think anyone who might have read my post that motivated your conduct would be a little confused as to why. For that reason, I've written this post to clarify why. It's because you're a fraud.

have a right to be treated with dignity and you have a duty to treat me that way.

And we can make it more clear than that. If you kidnap me and hold me against my will, you have violated my right to live freely. Such would be the case regardless of what the law is. — Hanover

Well, no doubt I have a right to disagree with you, and you have a duty not to infringe on that right. So, that's the end of that, I suppose. Who knew morality was so simple?

There are some things worse than death, such as torture, and Jefferson regarded life in the prisons of the time to be of the same order. Which it was. — ernestm

This is wrong. Jefferson actually wrote the Virginia law regarding the proportionality of punishment, holding that the highest form of punishment was death. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs10.html.

Long term prisons did not become common until after the Revolution, and typical Colonial punishments (as noted in the law cited above) included forced labor and the like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_prison_systems#Colonial_criminal_punishments.2C_jails.2C_and_workhouses

That is to say, Jefferson was progressive in the sense that he wanted punishment to be proportionate to the crime, but he did not hold the untenable view that death ought to be provided to inmates as a form of euthanasia because prison was worse than death. He also did not condemn prisons to the extent you say, largely because they didn't exist in the US until 1790 when the first was built in Pennsylvania (as noted in the Wiki article cited above). Jails at that time were largely only used to house inmates awaiting trial.

More importantly, none of this is compatible with anything you previously said, which is that natural rights proscribes deprivation of life or liberty in all instances. That is the part of natural law you simply cannot comprehend, which is that people can be deprived rights (including the right to live) if they have done something to earn it.

In talking with others, it appears I need to make a real clarification

while it may be your opinion that my description of the theory of natural law is wrong, that's nothing to do with whether my opinion is correct. In fact, nowhere did I even state my opinion. I just observed, from the perspective of Jeffersonian natural law, that certain conclusions about the practical applications follow, and if they are not followed, it creates social decay and reduces the power of the social contract. That was my observation, for which purpose, I summarized the thought, hoping that it would be understandable. Certainly a summary cannot capture all the finer details of the views, and I welcome any suggestions how to change what it says to make it more understandable and more accurate.

But its not actually anything to do with my opinion. I don't actually believe my opinion is of any real significance. I was just describing what other people think and made a new observation. That's all. The same was true for what I wrote about formal truth. For that I was called things like 'pompous' and a 'fraud' for which I really do not have anything further to say. I do have feelings, and being made to repeat multiple times why people should not be killed by people seeking a justification to kill those who are or might be innocent, even after saying I find the topic disagreeable, does eventually wear down my tolerance for evil. As I say, the point of positive law is to enable good, and especially was not conceived to justify rights to kill.

But as everyone seems so concerned with their own opinions, while looking to argue with mine, I will state my opinion. My opinion is that the USA is failing to demonstrate it deserves the rights which positive law defines, and the nation should be dissolved into smaller parts which do not wield so much power.

• After Trump's $48 billion transfer from the civilian sector to defense, the USA military industrial complex will consume two thirds of the discretionary budget, after including veteran's benefits, which is some enormous factor larger than any other nation, and totally unnecessary--while now cutting meals on wheels and arts programs costing a miniscule fraction of that, because they are considered a waste of money. it cost more for Trump to play golf than the annual cost of those programs quite a while ago.
• Also, firearms rights are enforced due to massive lobbying by the same industrial complex, and the justifications are flagrant denial of all independent scientific research on the topic. So now more than half a million have been killed with guns in the USA since 9/11, far more American citizens than terrorists could ever claim to have killed, by close to two orders of magnitude.
• Japan, on the other hand, has no standing army of its own, and only reluctantly maintains a small joint force in accordance with international treaties via the UN, which the USA of course wants to turn into another major military customer. Trump even tried to sell them nuclear bombs, illustrating exactly how much people here are so infatuated with their own superiority that they cannot even appreciate the attitude of people on whom the USA already dropped nuclear bombs. And Japan has no terrorism at all. Additionally, Japan banned guns, a long time ago, and more than a dozen shooting deaths/year is now considered a major national disaster there.

But that is nothing important, because I am not so arrogant to consider my opinion that important.

I do have some real respect for greater thinkers than me who can conceive far more noble ideas than my own, and that is why I write about their thought. Thank you for reading.

Actually we are interested in your opinion (to the extent it's based on facts and reasoning, of course). That's pretty much the point of this place: not to be a static repository of the thoughts of the recognized greats but a dynamic stage on which the rest of us can strut our stuff.

Well, that was my actual opinion, I am somewhat ashamed to say.

Well, I agree with most of the opinions you have given above. I'm sure others would too, and some would disagree. The idea is to get stuck in and support them until and unless someone can show you you are wrong. Please do that.

I don't really think it constitutes philosophy. I just cite the two main examples why the USA doesn't deserve the rights it so arrogantly considers irrevocable. That's all

I was speaking more in general. Whether those particular opinions are on topic enough to present here is up to you to decide. But all sorts of things are debated on the site in appropriate places.

The problem with that, sir, is that I don't actually regard my own opinion on philosophical matters is that important. And while other people may feel their own opinions important to themselves, it seems to me, over the course of 2,500 years and trillions of people, most ideas have already been thought before. Therefore, for the benefit of furthering understanding reality, it is better to consider what philosophers have already written, rather than believing one's own ideas are somehow original, which by evidence is usually naïve.

Ok, but walls of text that are simply stanceless summaries of the thinking of the greats as well as subsequent referrals to these texts are likely to be deleted from discussions in future simply because they serve no useful purpose in a forum like this.

Well, what I can do is extend their thinking to current situations. For example, I recently illustrated how Trump's idea of 'truth' can be meaningful in the school of formal logic, and I sent it to the board as an article submission. Initially they said they wanted it, but now I don't know if it will get published because people have objected to me thinking on the thoughts of others besides themselves. So I applied to go back to college and hope to publish in academic journals eventually, but its going to be a long time.