-not on someone else's private property
-not outside of your own country
How hard is that?
>but muh universal right
Rights are granted by the sanction
of the state.
>Rights are granted by my guns
T. Subrural Retard
Truth is that democracies change laws, and soon you will be prosecuted for your hate. Best you start changing now.
kys leaf
>Rights are granted by the sanction
of the state
>T. Subrural Retard
then how does the state enforce those rights?
To prove you wrong, I am going to preach to the natives of the Andaman Islands. BRB.
Based AND redpilled
This is why leafs are my favorite posters on Jow Forums
"Political power flows out of a barrel of a gun".
Those "subrural" retards would kick your ass.
"But muh nukes"
Yeah England nuked South Armagh right?
Or Afghanistan.
>Rights are granted by the sanction of the state
Ahahaha
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>Rights are granted by the sanction of the state.
No. No they are not.
This Chinese Canuck probably gets a nickel everytime he posts this bread...
>combined with his earnings from sucking refugee dick he probably can afford to eat poultry once a week, since he chokes on meatly hourly...
What country are you talking about leaftard? Because surely you know that non Americans are not entitled to an opinion on American politics.
>All cancer doctors must have survived cancer
Yawn
> not outside of your own country
Nah, I'm American anywhere. I've been to cana-duh. Y'all are pussys, won't do shit.
For real though. I'll be dead before things get that bad in my conrty. I'm gonna die on my feet before I live on my knees.
>I'm gonna die on my feet before I live on my knees.
You'll recite that moments before I nut in your boi pussy.
>Rights are granted by the sanction
>of the state.
NO! This is absolutely, completely wrong. Rights are things you automatically get by default, simply because you exist. The whole point of the USA, literally the whole reason it was created in the first place, was to protect the rights for its citizens (as other countries SHOULD be doing for THEIR citizens.)
The purpose of the Bill of Rights isn't to grant you rights. It is to prevent the government from trying to take those rights from you. This may seem like semantics but it is a very important distinction, and you cannot genuinely say you understand the Constitution until you understand this point.
Rights are natural and inherent in all human beings you commie fucker. The only purpose of the state should be to protect these rights, not limit them or enforce ANY nonessential legislation.
>Something exists
>Can't see or prove it
American religion, American politics
Can't defend that which you can't prove. Sad.
>can't prove people exist
>people shouldn't have rights lol
What the fuck even are you? People have natural rights because it's morally just, not because it needs to be justified through any political or ideological lens.
>Beliefs don't require justification
>Every it I wish to impose these beliefs on others
Tyrant
>not on someone else's private property
Ironic that the supposed biggest advocates for free speech -- the libertarians -- want a world of entirely private property, thereby putting an end to free speech.
> before I nut in your boi pussy.
Quit trying act cool, we all know you guys can't even get it up if an animal isn't involved.
You're pathetic dude. I'm trying to say you're wrong, declare your rights and freedom. Fight for them.
But you have this pussy attitude, like oh I hope my daddy state will gives me the freedom to do this, and man I hope those Americans can't do mean talk to me anymore.
Monopolies need to get broken up.
There is some level of truth to what you say, although you covered it in a thick syrup of Canadian ignorance and shitposting.
Free Speech is a right granted by the Government which states that the Government will not infringe on your right to free speech. That does not and never did give you the right to just say whatever you want, wherever you want. That's never how it worked. It's a guarantee that you can say "Democracy sucks, Trump should be Dictator!" and the army/police won't come and kill you/arrest you/etc.
Online social media is not the Government. They do not grant you the right of free speech. They are allowed to censor things they don't like, and newsflash: they don't like us, or right wing politics, or anything that interferes with their liberal slide into turbo degeneracy.
So yes, you can state loud and proud that there are two genders and trannies are mentally ill. You can even organize a parade. The KKK has parades all the time. Then the media will record you and cast you as a rural retard to millions of viewers, and hundreds of SJWs will try to ruin your life and profession by contacting your boss. And if you say it on Reddit or Facebook or hell even Jow Forums, they can remove it and ban you. During none of these things does Free Speech ever fucking come into the equation.
Break up tech monopolies.
Your man Obama would tell them, "You didn't build that."
>-not on someone else's private property
so according to lolbertarians, never?
What? I'm not imposing any beliefs on anyone, I'm suggesting that people have natural rights and freedoms by default and that the state does not interfere with them.
To explain:
>I think therefore I am
>I am the first thing that can be assumed to be valid
>For other things to be assumed to be valid I must assume that I, the observer, am valid
>Because the individual is the closest thing to an objective truth in a subjective universe we must have rights and freedoms essential to a prosperous existence
>The individual must be allowed to express their thoughts and offer their subjective experiences to others in the hope that it can expand the limited subjective window through which we each observe
>The individual must be allowed to defend themselves with reasonable force as pertaining to the situation.
There are more but I'm not an extensive reader of Locke or those French chaps everyone always goes on about. The point is that no man is automatically more valid than another. Each should have the freedom to exist as they please to a certain extent so long as they do not illegitimately infringe on the freedoms of others.
Insisting that people should be free is the opposite of tyranny.
>>-not on someone else's private property
>so according to lolbertarians, never?
Exactly. Free speech is a temporary necessary evil.
The answer is simple.
Break up the tech monopolies.
Good. If the police come to my house because I called someone a nigger, I'll call the police a nigger spit on them and beat the fuck out of him. I'll then gladly rot in jail.
OP here
>There is some level of truth to what you say, although you covered it in a thick syrup of Canadian ignorance and shitposting.
Exactly. Only way to get retards to my threads
>Free Speech is a right granted by the Government which states that the Government will not infringe on your right to free speech.
This is what I'm saying. That free speech is defended by citizens, not necessarily granted by government.
>Online social media is not the Government. They do not grant you the right of free speech. They are allowed to censor things they don't like, and newsflash: they don't like us, or right wing politics, or anything that interferes with their liberal slide into turbo degeneracy.
Agree, that free speech in social media use only an issues because of excess government power.
We're on the same page desu.
All, you got me. But I do so for the benefit of onlookers, and also for your ability to defend your case! You're welcome.
No harm, no foul. Guess I needed to stretch the old philosophical hamstrings again.
Just the things I see on this board really do baffle me sometimes. Have a good day fellow Imperial citizen.
Break up the tech monopolies.
Problem solved.
>Just the things I see on this board really do baffle me sometimes.
I believe most are insincere. I hope I'm right.
>Have a good day fellow Imperial citizen.
Good day
>Rights are granted by the sanction of the state.
No.
Rights are granted by no one, meaning they can't be taken away by anyone.
That's the point, they're "God given" meaning bestowed upon you by something greater than man, as such man cannot touch them.
Your rights are granted by the sanction of your state, our state's constitution recognized certain self evident inalienable "rights" and in theory takes on as part of it's duties the protection of said rights when they are infringed upon within our borders.
>Rights are granted by guns.
No, one of the ways to guarantee rights infringements are few and far between is to have all individuals be capable of self protection at any time without the need to mobilize the resources of the state. On top of that for an individual to have full agency of their person they must be able to defend their own person, and firearms are a highly efficient tool for that purpose. Self defense is a right in every free and un-corrupted US state, thus tools for the expedition of self defense must be protected from restriction.
>That's the point, they're "God given" meaning bestowed upon you by something greater than man, as such man cannot touch them.
Ideally, yes. But in the real world your rights are determined by those who have power over you.