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.
Anyway on natural rights, I also don't believe they exist objectively but they're beneficial since we don't live in that ideal post-scarcity society. I don't approach natural rights from the liberal point of view because the liberal point of view argues those rights are god-given and I don't believe in God in the first place. However, I believe that the state needs to guarantee the right to life at the bare minimum along with other rights agreed upon between the citizenry and the state, and that if the state begins to infringe upon that right to life and those other agreements, then the people have reason to revolt. I mostly like the actions of the USSR before late Brezhnev, but because the state had too much power and focused it into an autocrat they began to slip into a state capitalist economy and they fucked over the country fully when they invaded Afghanistan. The Great Leap Forward is again a story of the state having significantly more power that the citizen body, which results in the state failing and slipping into Dengism. The right to vote for head of state and a legislature isn't one of those absolutely necessary rights imo. I have a lot more thoughts but i still have homework due.
Amazing Name
Lassalle respect
What's the point of guaranteeing right to life if some people don't deserve to live?
It's unfortunate that China had to reduce it's authoritarianism, but it was needed for development after all every country develops itself through some form of market/foreign capital. I don't think China is capitalist though because the means of production are still socially owned. You can still have markets and be socialist
same JFL
I used to say i'm open to social democracy because that meant things like Orthodox Marxists like 1930s SPD, but people associate that with Democratic Party Mamdani El-Sayed Keynesianism now so I just say Lassalleanism because people will generally understand what that means.
The point of guaranteeing the right to life is because if the state has the power to kill, it will almost always use that power maliciously. There's no reason for the state to kill or almost no reason for an individual to kill, and a revolution is one of the reasons where taking lives makes sense it's simply revenge on the state for not upholding the agreement they had with the people and/or because it's necessary for the people to progress.
