Hacker News Reader

Inconsistently protected rights are not "rights".

You must surely realize that your statement is nonsense. If it were true then there would be no rights. No right or law is ever protected with perfect consistency. The right to life, the right to make personal choices, the right to determine one's own identity—whatever right you may believe in, it is never protected consistently. All rights are "inconsistently protected." Therefore, by your statement, there are no rights.

Are you saying you disbelieve in rights altogether?

Correct. The power structure and its "rights" exist exclusively to protect themselves.

So, to make sure I understand, you’re saying that there are no rights, and no one should have any rights. So if a government declares that it can imprison anyone indefinitely for any reason at any time, that’s a good thing. There is no right protecting people’s freedom. Governments can and should be able to do anything they want. Is that it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com