Do you think it's beneficial for them to exist in society, even if they don't exist objectively.
yes and no it's not an answerable question if we had no human rights we would all be truly free but that would plunge the world into chaos
No, there is no such thing as an eternal universal moral law that says if something is right or wrong.
Even if there's no objective morality, do you think it's beneficial to society to have natural rights.
No, it’s not beneficial to invent arbitrary universal laws to subjugate people.
I'd argue that it's in societies best interest to agree to the right to life at the very least, and that no individual or state should be able to take your life outside of self-defense.
Best interest based on what? Based on the bourgeoisie who don’t want to be killed by proletarian revolutionaries? The same people cause thousands to die annually due to malnutrition, yet according to the liberal ethics that you are describing they bear 0% of the consequences for those individuals that died because of them.
I do disagree with liberal market economies mostly, I'm not gonna explain my entire political ideology but in a proletarian revolution killing the bourgeoisie isn't a violation of their right to life because they infringed upon that right first. It has to do with the social contract, if the state cannot guarantee your natural rights then a revolution becomes justified no matter how bloody. My question from the start wasn't very realistic but it basically means in your ideal state would natural rights exist, is there any situation outside self-defense where the state or a person taking the life of another should be legally justified?
Are you NazBol?
From a liberal democratic point of view they didn’t infringe on anything. They simply participated in capitalism, even something like indirectly causing more malnutrition due to rising poverty because wages are low or prices are high wouldn’t be seen as violating anyone’s right to life. Because it is a negative right as long as nobody is being directly shot or killed there is no violation.
Well the state is technically guaranteeing your “natural rights” from a liberal point of view. Also you say you don’t subscribe to liberalism but if you are a capitalist you are also a liberal, it is intrinsically a liberal system that is supported by liberals. “Conservatives” are really just liberals from the 1980’s.
no natural rights don't exist its a madeup shitlib social construct.
Nazbol/Natcom basically the same thing except Nazbol sounds better and is more aesthetic so I’d rather call myself that
I'm not very dogmatic (although i understand why dogmatism is prevalent in Marxism) I'm anything from a Lassallean to a Marxist-Leninist depending on the situation a state finds itself in. This should also tell you i'm not really a capitalist, although i'm not a moralfag leftcom who's going to sit broke waiting on their ass for a revolution.
