I believe individual rights and human rights are supreme. I don't believe a majority, or a democratically elected sovereign, has the right to curtail the freedoms and rights of individuals. That's what being discussed here.
By your moral framework, the German people, who elected Hitler into power, had every right in the world, to murder and slaughter millions of Jews, Roma, Slavs/Poles, and others.
What a terrible moral framework.
> who I can hire
No, restricting who I can engage in commerce with, or really any sort of interpersonal relationship, is a violation of my freedom. I believe people are free to engage in any form of human interaction with others, as they see fit. You have no fucking right to dictate who I decide to be friends with, hire, etc.
> ... one of many ideologies in this world. It doesn't have a status of the only truth ...
I'll just point you to my other comment for this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14545935
> For you that means, that the majority of your co-citizens decided on some rules and if you break them, yes, violence may ensue, until you stop breaking them.
Suppose, I lived in the mid-1800s, and the majority of my co-citizens decided to pass the Fugitive Slave Act. I am against slavery, and I believed that that law was immoral, reprehensible, and wrong. What do I do? Comply with law? Fuck that. I would have fought against it, with violence, if necessary. All I'm asking for is that you respect basic human rights, nothing more. If you can't do that, honestly, I am justified in using violence against you, to defend myself against your acts of violence against me.
You didn’t define these individual rights and human rights yet. Every few years someone invents a new ones. Should we have something so vague as a foundation of our system?
> By your moral framework, the German people, who elected Hitler into power, had every right in the world, to murder and slaughter millions of Jews, Roma, Slavs/Polet, and others.
You are conflating several things. The Germans weren’t acting in their jurisdiction, they invaded others. They were no longer keeping theirs whats theirs, they were taking from others.
> What a terrible moral framework.
If you say so. I’m still avoiding the judgement of yours, despite having a suspiction of confusion of ideas.
> No, restricting who I can engage in commerce with, or really any sort of interpersonal relationship, is a violation of my freedom. I believe people are free to engage in any form of human interaction with others, as they see fit. You have no fucking right to dictate who I decide to be friends with, hire, etc.
If you do not intend to respect the law of the land, you can still move out. Well, if someone other will accept you. You might find that the other countries are not as open as you think they are and you might be a subject of same or more restrictions.
And again, we are back to inventing a new “rights”. Why should be your “right” something, that possibly damages communities in your existing jurisdiction?
> Suppose, I lived in the mid-1800s, and the majority of my co-citizens decided to pass the Fugitive Slave Act. I am against slavery, and I believed that that law was immoral, reprehensible, and wrong. What do I do? Comply with law? Fuck that. I would have fought against it, with violence, if necessary. All I'm asking for is that you respect basic human rights, nothing more. If you can't do that, honestly, I am justified in using violence against you, to defend myself against your acts of violence against me.
At the time, your moral values would be different and you would do zilch. You still do not have objective criteria to define them, they are formed by the current prevailing ideology. Unsurprisingly, in different parts of the world, they are different. The adage “every nation deserves the government is has” is unbelievably true on many levels.
I would be very, very careful with inciting violence. The chances are, if you cannot persuade others about your ideas using communication, you definitely won’t persuade them using violence.
I'm not. The sovereign is. By the definition, the monopoly to use the violence belongs to the sovereign, which in this age is in a form of a democracy or republic.
For you that means, that the majority of your co-citizens decided on some rules and if you break them, yes, violence may ensue, until you stop breaking them.
> which is the despicable (and immoral) unquestioned status quo of today.
As you were told in the sibling comment, your moral system and moral systems of others may be different.
> Simply because you belong to a majority (or minority) of the citizens of my country, does not give you the right to dictate
Yes, the majority has that rights. Again, the common name for that is democracy.
If you do not agree, use the first three of four boxes of liberty.
> who I can hire,
The majority definitely has this right. The labor market doesn't belong to you, you just participate there.
> who I can invite into my home, etc.
Fortunately for you, the majority in most countries consider tourism to be a good thing, where just the security of the others need to be taken care of. Tourist tend not to use social security, health care or other services, that were funded by your co-citizens and not your guests.
> For libertarian arguments underpinning this fundamentally moral and human rights issue
Libertarianism is just one of many ideologies in this world. It doesn't have a status of the only truth. Other ideologies or world-views have their own arguments.
Here I return to one of the box of liberty mentioned above, soapbox. For communication and discussion it is important not only to present your arguments, but also listen to the arguments of the others, who you might not agree with, and correctly embed their points and worries into your position. If you do not, it's you who will get ignored, as there would be no point of discussion.