Quote of the day—Robert Riversong

There are no “natural rights” any more than “God-given rights”. All rights are created by social consensus and protected by law.

Robert Riversong
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[It’s true this is merely the ranting of someone ignorant of history and legal precedent but he has a lot of people on his side. At one time our government did not recognize the right to be free of bondage and people like him perpetuated that condition. There have been many times throughout history when “the law” demanded that “certain types” of people be murdered by the thousands or millions. People who thought like Mr. Riversong enabled that. That makes him and his kind extremely dangerous.

People who believe in natural rights put Riversong’s historical compatriots on trial for crimes against humanity. I look forward to him being on trial.—Joe]

15 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Robert Riversong

  1. Of course this guy spouts nonsense. Neil Smith states the correct answer clearly in his discussion of the Zero Aggression Principle: http://www.down-with-power.com/0-zap.html and in just a few lines http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html .
    He also describes it as “… the only way, short of state coercion, for killer apes to live together in peace, freedom, progress, prosperity—and privacy.” (http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2013/tle745-20131117-02.html) In other words, that is the natural law basis of rights.
    Thomas Jefferson said it too — I have to track down the words he used.

  2. I’m convinced that people that spout that sort of nonsense have no idea that those ideas condone the actions of tyrants and despots. After all, if the tyrant can get enough people to go along with him for a consensus to change the law, nothing they do up to and including packing the Jews the oven is a violation of human rights….

    • The optimistic view is what you said. The pessimistic view is that they know full well — and approve (because they think that they are the ones who will be making those policies).
      I suspect the true answer is “some of each”.

      • After years watching how they deal with other people, I’ve come to the conclusion they are completely aware of what they’re advocating. They just think they’ll be the ones with the whip.

  3. “All rights are created by THE CONSENT OF THE POWERFUL and protected by RIGHTEOUS VIOLENCE (OR THE THREAT/CAPABILITY OF SUCH) ON THE PART OF THOSE WHO’s RIGHTS ARE BEING DENIED.”

    Fixed it for him. If you want to take any “natural law” or “divine power” discussion out of it altogether, then what I wrote above is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

    He wants to take the ability of the aggrieved to commit righteous violence in defense of their rights in the face of the powerful that would deny them, by assuring us that the powerful will, like totes let us keep them, pinkey swear and cross their heart, hope to die.

    Trust men who have power over me?

    Not in a million years, regardless of how benevolent they present at the current moment. History has proven that even the friendliest of governments can go outright feral in less than a decade. I’ll keep my weapons, and my ability to at least try to defend myself against that, thanks much.

    You want to trust them? be my guest, pal. Sorry if I don’t buy into your way of looking at things.

  4. At risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, this guy apparently is cool with what happened to the Jews, among many other examples. Social consensus, backed by power of the law, made industrialized slaughter perfectly fine by these standards. And we’re supposed to relinquish our means of defense against these sociopaths. Molon Labe indeed.

    • For more than a few authoritarians, industrialized slaughter is the goal, the Holy Grail if you will. MANY American Progressives openly supported Hitler and Mussolini before it became unpopular to do so. FDR was an admirer of Joe Stalin. Likewise, Stalin made it a crime, even when Russia was under attack by the Germans, to criticize the Nazis on ideological grounds because their ideologies were so similar.

      The Progressives (incremental communists) haven’t changed their ideology one bit. They’ve simply taken a different approach, closer to Ted Bundy’s style with some Sol Alinsky, Noam Chomsky and George Soros thrown in.

  5. Look at the bright side: you now have written proof that he denies the existence of human rights. I’m certain you can throw that back in his face at some point.

    • He acknowledges the existence of human rights, but defines them as coming only from consensus [of the power-hungry]. This is simply the definition of pure democracy, which can in turn be defined as tyranny of the majority. Instead of rule by a single, iron-fisted dictator or king, we are to have our rights violated by an iron-fisted majority, or consensus. There is nothing at all new or even interesting in that.

      The whole idea breaks down the instant you consider that denial of the concept of inherent rights is motivated by mistrust of the individual. If the individual cannot be trusted to run his own life as he chooses (because he has the inherent right to do so) in a system designed to protect inherent rights, so long as he’s not violating other people’s rights, then why on Earth should he be trusted with the more grave responsibility of voting “correctly” in a system that is NOT bound by the concept of inherent rights?

      No. The whole thing is a silly, simple ruse. We’re told on one hand that we can’t be trusted, that we don’t have the moral authority to run our own lives, in a system that recognizes immutable rights, and then we’re told that we DO have the moral authority to tell other people how to live their lives through the democratic process in a system that doesn’t recognize immutable rights.

      Hah! You can’t expect people to fall for that unless you had some cockamamie system already set up wherein the government controlled education, such that it could drilled into poor kids heads through endless repetition and intimidation. Oh wait….

      • It would be interesting to ask him if he “believes” in evolution, and if so, how does he square that with not believing people have an innate right to defend their lives and those of their blood relatives.

  6. Then my suggestion is that we remove all of his rights and then listen to the pig squeal.

Comments are closed.