They 100% do, and there is truth to it since that is exactly what happens "government laws"against murder they impose their will and imprison or execute people. That is the objective fact of what happens.
Nope, they 100% do NOT. The fact that government imposes their evil will and imprisons or executes people, no matter what the reason is, does NOT prove that their "laws" apply to anyone. Again I said that only proves that government is a group of horrible people who want domination and control over strangers. And "government laws" against murder are REDUNDANT, because laws against murder ALREADY EXIST WITHOUT GOVERNMENT IN NATURAL LAW.
And government would still be in the wrong for imprisoning and executing anyone they accuse of breaking government-made "laws" [which are NOT real laws, they're nothing but Statues & Codes, which require a contract with the government in order to be applicable] because they can never show any factual evidence that the government-made "laws" apply to the ones they imprison or execute. The "objective fact of what happens" does NOT change the objective fact that government is evil and has no legitimate existence.
Their opinions are valid in the only important sense - that being of what actually will happen in life. You think there are natural laws? What rights do you believe you inherently have? A right to life? All only apply insofar as you can enforce these rights.
Nope, their opinions are valid in no sense whatsoever. "what actually will happen in life" [meaning them imposing their will without evidence that their "laws" apply] only proves that they're evil and have no factual information to support their claims of authority.
And of course there are natural laws. Natural Law is the REAL Law of the Land. It's not man-made. It's determined by logic and ethics, and no government is needed to determine what my natural rights are. The true definitions of the word "right" are (1) synonymous with "correct"; based on truth, and (2) synonymous with "moral", and the true definition of the word "moral" is in harmony with Natural Law. And with those 2 true definitions of the word "right", it's determined that actions based in right do NOT result in harm to other sentient beings.
So if I'm doing something that is NOT resulting in harm to other sentient beings, then by definition, I'm exercising an inherent right. I have an inherent right to be alive, I have an inherent right to grow my own food, I have an inherent right to own a house, I have an inherent right to use my car on the roads without a driver's license or license plates, I have an inherent right to own and carry my guns without a license or permit, I have an inherent right pay no taxes. Nothing the government does changes the fact that I have those rights inherently.
Because might makes right, thats how the world works and we have known this for thousands of years. Any one can complain their rights are being violated or they have a right to whatever they can think of, but it is all irrelevant unless you can enforce it. Prove you have any natural right. Hasn't ever been done factually. You just end up assuming some axiom to support your position. Fact of the world is might makes right. Only rights people have are the ones they can enforce.
Nope, just because I can't enforce a right doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. I already told what the true definition of "right" is. My rights exist naturally, determined by logic and ethics, and you can't change that. If you believe that rights only exist when they can be enforced, then you believe that any man has the right to break into a lone woman's house to rape her and steal her property and get away scot-free just because he is physically stronger than her and intelligent enough to do it without getting caught by the government. Logic and ethics say otherwise; the violation of rights does not mean they don't exist, it just means they are violated.
If you believe that might makes right, then you believe the Holocaust of the Jews was justified; you believe that Nazi Germany had the right to start a world war just because they had the power to do so; you believe the genocide of Rwanda was justified. So you believe that any horrid barbarity committed throughout history can be justified by saying "they were mighty enough to do it, so they had the right to do it". You believe in a world were such horrifically evil acts are acceptable just because they're strong enough to do it without being stopped.
And, demonstratively, right does not make might. If that were true, than all one needs is a righteous cause to be guaranteed victory. By that logic, Poland was in the right when they were invaded by Hitler, and therefore, Poland was the winner. But history says otherwise; therefore right does not make might, either.
“might makes right" and "right makes might" are both fallacies