Problem with this argument is: What god and under what rule book?

If my rule book says women are second class citizens, then is that just it? They have no rights? Or if my rule book says homosexuality is bad, but another interpretation of the rule book says its fine, then who's rule book is correct? Who settles that argument? Government.

Only other answer is a holy war and the survivors rule book is supreme. Until the next holy war.

My God says you have no rights except those derived from governments. Now what do we do?

"Rights" are more properly understood as "a social agreement among people of a culture". If a culture doesn't value something, no rights for it exist. When cultures intersect, "rights" get real muddy real fast.

This is silly. God gave no right to domain names. If the internet was a libertarian utopia, I would just run my own DNS server and could "own" google.com, apple.com, etc. Except no one would use my DNS server.

Instead governments and NGOs manage limited "intellectual property" rights on DNS servers everyone agrees to connect to so the internet can actually be useful and not a free-for-all. The same applies to copyrights and patents. There is no natural right to exclusive ownership of an idea or written text. These things are "naturally" meant to be copied. Intellectual property "rights" are entirely constructed by government decree.

I don't believe in Imaginary Property (aka Intellectual Property). It's not what I was talking about.

Someone bought the right to use a specific domain from a specific domain name provider. It was a private transaction between two parties, freely agreed to between them.

In the specific case you're railing against, arbitration by the complaints board is just a contractual provision in that private transaction.

There is no "theft". Your whole understanding of this issue is absurd.

>Yeah, this is the fundamental disconnect I have with (apparently) most people. Rights come from God.

Please objectively prove the existence of the specific God from which you assert that all rights derive.

This [1] is by far the best answer I have ever seen to that question / request. Since it is quite long, I will attempt to summarize: that is what I start from. I am more certain of the existence of God than I am of my own existence - the first one is an axiom, the second one is a theorem ("I think, therefore I am").

"The answer is that a reasonable person is a person who believes what Augustine believes and who, like Augustine, can only hear assertions contrary to that belief as absurd."

I genuinely see opinions different from mine as absurd. As in, "you cannot possibly believe this, which means you are lying" absurd. It's why I generally dismiss the common saying "do not attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence". NOBODY is that incompetent, and therefore whatever I disagree with is in fact malice.

I realize it's a minority opinion. I am fine with that situation, though I continue to be surprised when people disagree :)

[1] https://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/02/001-why-we-cant-...