 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » More on: "What is a Right?"... |
|
Page 3 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Constantinople... |
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 12:22 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Les Cargill wrote
James A. Donald wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
James A. Donald wrote
(Doug Bashford) wrote
Since when can a moral claim stop an immoral man?
Morality enables people to cooperate. Thus the immoral man
will usually find himself outnumbered, and very possibly, dead.
Try telling that to Madoff.
Who is now in jail.
it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Only in your pathetic little fantasyland.
Pity about Stalin, Paulson, Cheney, etc etc etc.
[/quote]
All of them acting through the state. Power corrupts. If Madoff were
acting as a government official, he would not only have stayed out of
jail, but would be running social security.
So if you are the scum of the earth, go into government. And naturally
enough, the scum of the earth have taken this very good advice, as
anyone can plainly see.
[quote]
Dont be TOO surprised when they ALL just laugh in your silly little pig ignorant face.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 6:16 am, play... at (no spam) work.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
[quote]To whome do you send your taxes?
[/quote]
I dont send them anywhere, they are stollen from my pay packet by a
thief before I even get to see it. It is ewe who is trying to disguise
your disgusting ideology by blaming a mob of human individuals other
than taking the blame yourself.
And what you leftist brain dead idiots have yet to work out is that
tax is a cost of production that has to be met entirely by the
customer -- 95% of whom consider themselves to be poor.
[quote]That's seemingly a positive statement.
[/quote]
Cockhead.
[quote]Allow me.
[/quote]
Cockhead.
[quote]Clue: stop trying to sound like Moses and Limbaugh.
[/quote]
Why are sounding like Moses and Limbaugh?
[quote]Huh?
[/quote]
Are ewe fucking deaf as well as stupid? Your mind engages your energy,
you are therefore the owner and therefore you are responsible for your
actions.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David Johnston... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:56:40 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]If the owner of the largest right arm at any given time
is also one that endures, it is called stable government
Mindlessly silly, most obviously with banditry and warlords.
[/quote]
I fail to see what is obvious to you. Bandits and warlords are not
noted for their endurance.
[quote]I don't like that definition, but that's the way it is.
Nope. Most obviously with many rights like
the right to life and the right to free speech etc.
[/quote]
What's so obvious about that?
[quote]For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from killing you.
Nope. What prevents that is morality in the moral, fear of
jail in the immoral, amoral and passionate, and my right arm.
Nope. Most obviously with many rights like
the right to life and the right to free speech etc.
[/quote]
This word "obvious"...it's very useful isn't it? It means you don't
have to support a claim, because its "obvious". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David Johnston... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 09:19:05 -0800, Coffee's For Closers
<Usenet2009 at (no spam) THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote:
[quote]In article <7ecte5thrljkpjoeso6thtbhqlv2nt3eeq at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
jamesd at (no spam) echeque.com says...
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:19:24 GMT, playing at (no spam) work.edu (Doug Bashford)
wrote:
Since when can a moral claim stop an immoral man?
Morality enables people to cooperate. Thus the immoral man will
usually find himself outnumbered, and very possibly, dead.
There are plenty of situations where immoral people cooperate.
Lynch mobs.
[/quote]
Lynch mobs are an expression of morality.
[quote]Street gangs and mafia.
[/quote]
Street gangs and mafia function by developing a code of morality that
only applies to those within the subculture. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David Johnston... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
<mikegordge at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 3:28 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is that the
grantor of the right (the State or State-like jurisdiction) will not
act against you if you can demonstrate that your actions meet certain
criteria.
You ought concern yourself more with giving a meaning to rights - How
does the state determine that "certain criteria"?
[/quote]
With laws. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David Johnston... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:19:25 -0500, Demon Buddha <Nobody at (no spam) no.where>
wrote:
[quote]tg wrote:
This may seem a subtle distinction, but I feel it is an important one
to be aware of. I believe it is fundamental.
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is that the
grantor of the right (the State or State-like jurisdiction) will not
act against you if you can demonstrate that your actions meet certain
criteria.
States do not grant rights. Nobody does. These are born-in qualities
of humans.
[/quote]
So Jefferson declared. He declared that claim to be "self-evident".
It's a synonym for "obvious", and obvious is such a useful word, isn't
it? It means "I'm not going to support this claim but I expect you to
accept it anyway." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Clave... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"David Johnston" <david at (no spam) block.net> wrote in message
news:g515f51jph0lp4shung37rpduahpttjif0 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:19:25 -0500, Demon Buddha <Nobody at (no spam) no.where
wrote:
tg wrote:
This may seem a subtle distinction, but I feel it is an
important one
to be aware of. I believe it is fundamental.
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is that the
grantor of the right (the State or State-like jurisdiction) will not
act against you if you can demonstrate that your actions meet certain
criteria.
States do not grant rights. Nobody does. These are born-in qualities
of humans.
So Jefferson declared.
[/quote]
No he fucking didn't, not in any universal or moral sense. He said "WE HOLD
THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT...". Not that it's universally true, but
that the authors of the document, for the document's sake, are asserting it.
[quote]He declared that claim to be "self-evident".
It's a synonym for "obvious", and obvious is such a useful word, isn't
it? It means "I'm not going to support this claim but I expect you to
accept it anyway."
[/quote]
For the DofI's purposes, it's called a "postulate", and the rest of the
document builds on it.
If you want to talk seriously about rights, as opposed to inflammatory
rhetoric intended to do little more than piss off George III, shouldn't you
kind of move past the DofI which has absolutely no force of law?
Just wondering.
Jim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Johnston wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Doug Bashford wrote
If the owner of the largest right arm at any given time
is also one that endures, it is called stable government
Mindlessly silly, most obviously with banditry and warlords.
I fail to see what is obvious to you.
[/quote]
Thats because you have wanked yourself completely blind.
[quote]Bandits and warlords are not noted for their endurance.
[/quote]
Neither are govts in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, stupid.
[quote]and is applauded by other enduring owners of large arms and rights.
Mindlessly silly, most obviously with banditry and warlords.
I don't like that definition, but that's the way it is.
Nope. Most obviously with many rights like
the right to life and the right to free speech etc.
What's so obvious about that?
[/quote]
Neither has a damned thing to do with who has the strongest right arm, stupid.
[quote]For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from killing you.
Nope. What prevents that is morality in the moral, fear of
jail in the immoral, amoral and passionate, and my right arm.
Nope. Most obviously with many rights like
the right to life and the right to free speech etc.
This word "obvious"...it's very useful isn't it?
[/quote]
Wrong, as always.
[quote]It means you don't have to support a claim, because its "obvious".
[/quote]
Gone blind yet, child ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Johnston wrote
[quote]Coffee's For Closers <Usenet2009 at (no spam) THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote
jamesd at (no spam) echeque.com says...
playing at (no spam) work.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote
Since when can a moral claim stop an immoral man?
Morality enables people to cooperate. Thus the immoral man
will usually find himself outnumbered, and very possibly, dead.
There are plenty of situations where immoral people cooperate.
Lynch mobs.
Lynch mobs are an expression of morality.
[/quote]
Try telling that to all those black lynched in the US south.
Dont be TOO surprised when they haunt you for the rest of your pathetic excuse for a 'life'
[quote]Street gangs and mafia.
Street gangs and mafia function by developing a code
of morality that only applies to those within the subculture.
[/quote]
Code, yes. Morality, pigs arse. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Johnston wrote
[quote]Michael Gordge <mikegordge at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote
tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is that
the grantor of the right (the State or State-like jurisdiction)
will not act against you if you can demonstrate that your actions
meet certain criteria.
You ought concern yourself more with giving a meaning to
rights - How does the state determine that "certain criteria"?
With laws.
[/quote]
Try telling that to all those jews that ended up dead in the holocaust.
Dont be TOO surprised when they just piss on you from a great height. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Johnston wrote
[quote]Demon Buddha <Nobody at (no spam) no.where> wrote
tg wrote
This may seem a subtle distinction, but I feel it is an
important one to be aware of. I believe it is fundamental.
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is that
the grantor of the right (the State or State-like jurisdiction)
will not act against you if you can demonstrate that your actions
meet certain criteria.
States do not grant rights. Nobody does. These are born-in qualities of humans.
So Jefferson declared. He declared that claim to be "self-evident".
[/quote]
He did indeed, and quite a few agreed with him when he did that, too.
[quote]It's a synonym for "obvious", and obvious is such a useful word, isn't it?
[/quote]
Yep.
[quote]It means "I'm not going to support this claim but I expect you to accept it anyway."
[/quote]
You're lying now. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Constantinople wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Les Cargill wrote
James A. Donald wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
James A. Donald wrote
(Doug Bashford) wrote
Since when can a moral claim stop an immoral man?
Morality enables people to cooperate. Thus the immoral man
will usually find himself outnumbered, and very possibly, dead.
Try telling that to Madoff.
Who is now in jail.
it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Only in your pathetic little fantasyland.
Pity about Stalin, Paulson, Cheney, etc etc etc.
All of them acting through the state.
[/quote]
Irrelevant to that stupid claim above.
And Madoff didnt.
[quote]Power corrupts.
[/quote]
Didnt corrupt Churchill or FDR or JFK.
[quote]If Madoff were acting as a government official, he would not
only have stayed out of jail, but would be running social security.
[/quote]
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
[quote]So if you are the scum of the earth, go into government.
[/quote]
Not even possible for someone like Madoff.
[quote]And naturally enough, the scum of the earth have taken
this very good advice, as anyone can plainly see.
[/quote]
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
>> Dont be TOO surprised when they ALL just laugh in your silly little pig ignorant face. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tg... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 8:58 pm, Demon Buddha <Nob... at (no spam) no.where> wrote:
[quote]tg wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:19 pm, Demon Buddha <Nob... at (no spam) no.where> wrote:
tg wrote:
This may seem a subtle distinction, but I feel it is an important one
to be aware of. I believe it is fundamental.
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is that the
grantor of the right (the State or State-like jurisdiction) will not
act against you if you can demonstrate that your actions meet certain
criteria.
States do not grant rights. Nobody does. These are born-in qualities
of humans.
Just like an Immortal Soul, right?
I made no mention of any such thing. The rights actually follow very
naturally and reasonably if one accepts the notion of the equivalence of
all people. Notice I did not say "equality". We are NOT equal, which
would imply we were clones. But we are equivalent in a metaphysical
sense - that is, we are of equal value as living beings. To reject this
notion is to open the door to every evil
[/quote]
Oh, sure, you are not making a religious argument.
You can change the words all you want; you are still talking about the
same thing. If you wish to make a rational case, please tell us how we
could distinguish an individual at birth who doesn't 'have' a soul or
rights or value or yadda yadda nonsense word that you will change with
every post.
-tg
[quote]we may be able to conceive and
perhaps a few we haven't yet discovered. If you and I are not of equal
value as beings, then if I possess superior instrumentality there is no
argument you or anyone could make against my making you my slave, or
just killing you for kicks. In such a case, might defines right.
If, OTOH, we accept the simple premise that we are all of equal value
as "units of life" (yes, inadequate, but I cannot find a better term for
the sake of being conversational), then the whole set of inherent and
inalienable human rights evolves from this very naturally. For example,
if you and I are of equal value, which is to say that we are equivalent
- that we are equals as living beings - then I hold no moral authority
to compel you to do anything, nor you me except as we may beforehand
come to agree, such as in an employer/employee relationship. If I
attempt to force you to do something against your will, while I may be
able to materially succeed, I would have done so only by virtue of
superior force and not as the result of any moral imperative. IOW, I
would have violated your rights.
The pure pragmatist may say that this is all irrelevant and from a
certain POV it could well be. But we choose the sorts of lives we want,
generally speaking, and I think I prefer something of principles beyond
that of the instrumentality of pure brute force to be the basis upon
which our lives are governed. I think it makes for better living.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 9:05 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Anarcissie:
Demon Buddha <Nob... at (no spam) no.where> wrote
tg wrote
Demon Buddha <Nob... at (no spam) no.where> wrote
tg wrote
This may seem a subtle distinction, but I feel it is an
important one to be aware of. I believe it is fundamental.
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is
that the grantor of the right (the State or State-like
jurisdiction) will not act against you if you can demonstrate
that your actions meet certain criteria.
States do not grant rights. Nobody does. These are born-in
qualities of humans.
Just like an Immortal Soul, right?
I made no mention of any such thing. The rights actually follow very
naturally and reasonably if one accepts the notion of the equivalence
of all people. Notice I did not say "equality". We are NOT equal, which
would imply we were clones. But we are equivalent in a metaphysical
sense - that is, we are of equal value as living beings.
That seems like a religious position to me.
It isnt. Its more an instinctive gut feeling.
Little kids very quickly develop pretty firm ideas about what is and is not fair
about what they get told to do, or what they end up with, LONG before they
are capable of reasoning or being able to grasp religious concepts etc.
Value implies choice or preference. What is being preferred over what, and by whom?
Yes, but thats got nothing to do with religion.
[/quote]
I smell gods.
[quote]Assuming value is meaningful when applied to "us"
-- another undefined element -- what does equality
of value mean, the mysterious evaluator can't
decide between some of "us" and others?
You also neglect to show why rights follow from this
equivalence of value. I don't see any obvious connection.
It does follow that if you believe you are equivalent in a metaphysical sense
in the sense he is talking about, that individual rights follow from that in the
sense that you have as much right to something as anyone else etc.
[/quote]
My problem is that I don't know what "equalivalent in a
metaphysical sense" can possibly mean. Valence refers
(usually) to power or effect. What does _metaphysical
power_ or _metaphysical effect_ refer to? And what set
of beings am I being held to be equivalent to? Humans?
Old White humans? All sentient beings?
[quote]To reject this notion is to open the door to every evil we may be
able to conceive and perhaps a few we haven't yet discovered.
If you and I are not of equal value as beings, then if I possess
superior instrumentality there is no argument you or anyone
could make against my making you my slave, or just killing
you for kicks. In such a case, might defines right.
The primary arguments most animals will make against
being killed or enslaved are violent self-defense and flight.
Its much more complicated than that. And those are instincts, not rights, anyway.
[/quote]
I didn't say they were rights, I said that the animals would
not argue metaphysics.
[quote]Neither of these is an appeal to an abstraction.
In fact, abstractions seem completely powerless
in such a case -- if not, we should observe bacteria
invoking them against the threats of predators.
If, OTOH, we accept the simple premise that we are all of equal value
as "units of life" (yes, inadequate, but I cannot find a better term for
the sake of being conversational), then the whole set of inherent and
inalienable human rights evolves from this very naturally. For example,
if you and I are of equal value, which is to say that we are equivalent
- that we are equals as living beings - then I hold no moral authority
to compel you to do anything, nor you me except as we may beforehand
come to agree, such as in an employer/employee relationship. If I
attempt to force you to do something against your will, while I may be
able to materially succeed, I would have done so only by virtue of
superior force and not as the result of any moral imperative. IOW,
I would have violated your rights.
So rights emanate from supposed resolutions of contests of power.
No they dont.
[/quote]
Maybe not, but that's what the paragraph I followed up
seemed to be saying. I'm trying to clarify Demon Buddha's
argument, and "so rights emanate..." is a suggestion.
[quote]But then, so do hierarchy and slavery.
The pure pragmatist may say that this is all irrelevant and from a
certain POV it could well be. But we choose the sorts of lives we want,
generally speaking, and I think I prefer something of principles beyond
that of the instrumentality of pure brute force to be the basis upon
which our lives are governed. I think it makes for better living.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 4:56 pm, David Johnston <da... at (no spam) block.net> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Nov 3, 3:28 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is that the
grantor of the right (the State or State-like jurisdiction) will not
act against you if you can demonstrate that your actions meet certain
criteria.
You ought concern yourself more with giving a meaning to rights - How
does the state determine that "certain criteria"?
With laws.
[/quote]
Laws plucked from thin air? what laws? where did the laws come from?
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm
|
|