 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » More on: "What is a Right?"... |
|
Page 4 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Michael Gordge... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 4:54 am, play... at (no spam) work.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
[quote]The reason.........
[/quote]
Try dealing with the subject ewe wanking leftist knuckle-dragging
Kantian cockhead.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 5:53 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]David Johnston wrote
Michael Gordge <mikegor... 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.
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.
[/quote]
Well said Rod.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 2:14 am, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]What the moronic brain damaged fail to understand is that governments are
entrusted to accomplish tasks that the individual cannot.
[/quote]
Which would cost the average western country less than 5% of GDP.
(police, defence, and law courts)
Perhaps ewe could do some homework and find out what percentage the US
now steals via the millions of draconian bogus taxes, regulation, laws
etc etc? and what over and above its core moral function the
government of the US now has its disgusting grubby anti-human hands
on.
[quote]He gets one thing right and believes that this one fundamental
proposition can extend to define the entire galaxy.
[/quote]
Its the premise of all moral values ewe commie retard.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:16:54 -0800, Clave wrote:
[quote]"David Johnston" <david at (no spam) block.net> wrote in message
news:g515f51jph0lp4shung37rpduahpttjif0 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
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.
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.
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."
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.
[/quote]
Nicely said....
It is a proposition concerning the "rights" that are to be realized and
enforced by a new government acting on behalf of its citizenry.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 5:10 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]
Its not religious so much, more just mindless fundamentalism.
[/quote]
You used your mind to point out to David Johnston that "law" is not
the standard of any moral right, with your reference to the Jews,
which I praise you for.
If promoting as I do, morality based on the human individual (thats
you) as being the only possible standard of all your moral values, is
"mindless fundamentalism", then I am guilty as charged.
Lets read your better idea.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:55:16 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
[quote]David Johnston wrote
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".
He did indeed, and quite a few agreed with him when he did that, too.
[/quote]
And it is that agreement that lends the substance.
[quote]It's a synonym for "obvious", and obvious is such a useful word, isn't
it?
Yep.
[/quote]
It is sort of like the current rightard use of "clearly". As you read
the rightrded screed then this is the keyword that normally precedes the
asserted dogma presented as being factual. This is not an indictment of
Jefferson or any one particular person or claim. It is an illustration
of what is meant by "self evident" types of axioms.
[quote]It means "I'm not going to support this claim but I expect you to
accept it anyway."
You're lying now.
[/quote]
It is a call for agreement. And an attempt to segregate and marginalize
those who do not agree.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:17:42 -0800, Michael Gordge wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 6:16Â am, play... at (no spam) work.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
To whome do you send your taxes?
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]
What the moronic brain damaged fail to understand is that governments are
entrusted to accomplish tasks that the individual cannot. There is no
real hope for people like Michael Gordge. There is a fundamental
religious affliction that will keep them in an infantile state for all
their lives.
[quote]That's seemingly a positive statement.
Cockhead.
Allow me.
Cockhead.
Clue: stop trying to sound like Moses and Limbaugh.
Why are sounding like Moses and Limbaugh?
Huh?
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.
[/quote]
He gets one thing right and believes that this one fundamental
proposition can extend to define the entire galaxy.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Doug Bashford... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In googlegroups.com> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Immortalist said
about:
Re: More on: "What is a Right?"
[quote]On Oct 31, (Doug Bashford) wrote:
=A0in sci.econ, .googlegroups.com
=A0On, 24 Oct 2009(PDT), Immortalist said:
...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
That's very pretty. I like that!
It's wrong, tho.
You seem to be confusing the positive with the normative,
the "is" with the "aught."
The only "aught" is whether you want to become a citizen and give up
some of your rights to be violent to the State or become a drifter.
[/quote]
In who's mind is that argument!?
Certainly not mine!
Must you burn straw men to make yours?
[quote]By consenting to be a member of a community, citizens consent to a
Social Contract. They agree to abide by the decisions of the majority,
because the community is a body which is governed by the majority.
Government by Consent of the Governed.
[/quote]
More or less, yes.
[quote]
In essence the social contract theory is an agreement whereby people
accept certain restrictions on them for the benefit of society.
[/quote]
Yup.
[quote]Social contract theory is the view that morality is founded solely on
uniform social agreements that serve the best interests of those who
make the agreement.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/soc-cont.htm
(1) Human rights, or natural rights, are rights which some hold to be
"inalienable" and belonging to all humans, according to (2) natural
law. Such rights are thought, by proponents, to be necessary for
freedom and the maintenance of a "reasonable" quality of life.
[/quote]
You need to clean that up. "Inalienable" in no way
implies natural or holy. It means non-transferable.
Such as; one can't sell oneself into slavery.
Quick definitions (inalienable)
adjective: incapable of being repudiated or transferred to
another
adjective: not subject to forfeiture
inalienable: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary,
Date: circa 1645
incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred
<inalienable rights>
[quote]
1. Natural Rights: political theory that maintains that an individual
enters into society with certain basic rights and that no government
can deny these rights.
[/quote]
I really don't know why you post the definition,
I think everybody here has a good feel for it.
[quote]The modern idea of natural rights grew out of
the ancient and medieval doctrines of natural law , i.e., the belief
that people, as creatures of nature and God, should live their lives
and organize their society on the basis of rules and precepts laid
down by nature or God.
[/quote]
Not exactly. Those were done away with by the Dark Ages.
It would be a travesty to imply that rights are historically
the way things were, just as implying or assuming that
a strong middle class is natural. These are the exceptions
to history.
The modern idea of natural rights grew out the
Age of Enlightenment; as all the philosophers you cite
below. Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence
was his poetry, but the ideas were boilerplate Enlightenment.
The U.S. Constition was no such document, as I argued.
Age of Enlightenment:
[quote]With the growth of the idea of individualism,
especially in the 17th cent., natural law doctrines were modified to
stress the fact that individuals, because they are natural beings,
have rights that cannot be violated by anyone or by any society.
Perhaps the most famous formulation of this doctrine is found in the
writings of John Locke . Locke assumed that humans were by nature
rational and good, and that they carried into political society the
same rights they had enjoyed in earlier stages of society, foremost
among them being freedom of worship, the right to a voice in their own
government, and the right of property. Jean Jacques Rousseau attempted
to reconcile the natural rights of the individual with the need for
social unity and cooperation through the idea of the social contract .
The most important elaboration of the idea of natural rights came in
the North American colonies, however, where the writings of Thomas
Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Paine made of the natural rights
theory a powerful justification for revolution. The classic
expressions of natural rights are the English Bill of Rights (1689),
the American Declaration of Independence (1776), the French
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), the first 10
amendments to the Constitution of the United States (known as the Bill
of Rights, 1791), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the
United Nations (1948).
[/quote]
And history has largly erased those.
Mostly by the followers of these political philosophers:
Edmund Burke(1729-1797)
Leo Strauss (1899 – 1973)
Russell Kirk (1918 – 1994)
Unlike Locke they assumed that humans were by nature
evil, greedy, violent, animalistic, lazy, and so forth.
Loosely, they and their modern followers all distrust (or worse)
the middle class and the individual, individual thought, and
believe in rulership by the upper class or wealthy, and believe
that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and
perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.
[quote]http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/n1/natrlrig.asp
2. Natural Law: theory that some laws are basic and fundamental to
human nature and are discoverable by human reason without reference to
specific legislative enactments or judicial decisions. Natural law is
opposed to positive law, which is human-made, conditioned by history,
and subject to continuous change.
[/quote]
blah blah blah...the definition is irrelevant.
Where's the argument?
...........snip
[quote]Since when can a moral claim stop an immoral man?
A right is a claim that can be backed up by the
strong *right* *arm.* =A0...by the war club, by the
long sword, by the gun, by a tribe, mob, or government.
We have the origins of two words here:
*right arm* - rights
*arms* =A0- weapons
=A0Many rights can be purchased, such
as land ownership bestows the right to deny
people the right to exist - on your property,
- the right to expel people. Etc...
=A0Many rights can be removed from an individual by a
tribe, mob, government, or other arm, such as by jail
or other law or decree by the owner of the largest right
arm at any given time. =A0
If the owner of the largest right arm at any given time
is also one that endures, it is called stable government
and is applauded by other enduring owners of large arms
and rights. =A0
I don't like that definition, but that's the way it is.
I'd much rather rights were natural or god given, etc,
which indeed I will claim next time I attempt to
overthrow an existing owner and allocator of rights.
(The last thing to mature in cognitive ability seems to
be the ability to distinguish the positive from the normative.
In fact, it seems many people never mature this far.)
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.
...........snip
They are
said to be "negative rights" in that they stipulate things that other
people may not do in their interactions with some individual. Your
right to life says that I may not kill you. My right to liberty says
that you may not enslave me.
Now you are talking about the US Constitution's
Bill of Rights.
The only reason they are called "negative rights"
and such, is because that's the way most were written,
they bestow no rights, they *limit government powers.*
...About the same as: "they *limit government rights.*"
You are talking about paper work, or one government's
definition, not a more universal definition.
Why did they write it that way? Keep in mind,
the U.S. Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional.
One was written to destroy a government, one to
create and hold a government. The constitution could hardly
cite god-given rights if it intended to own and control them. =A0
The Bill of Rights also cites (common law) rights beyond
the enumerated rights.
[/quote]
Burke Strauss Kirk
Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Leo Strauss (1899 – 1973)
Russell Kirk (1918 – 1994)
Check them out.
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Demon Buddha... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Johnston wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 06:56:40 +1100, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> 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. Bandits and warlords are not
noted for their endurance.
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?
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? It means you don't
have to support a claim, because its "obvious".
[/quote]
DOn't waste your time on this one. He has no mind to speak of. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Doug Bashford... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
In
<b8272b45-577c-4d2c-80bf-f3814f8776d6 at (no spam) m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:17:42 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge said
about:
Re: More on: "What is a Right?"
[quote]On Nov 4, 6:16=A0am, play... at (no spam) work.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
Huh?
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
Please reword. The below also; same problem. Your bad
wording makes you say silly things.
Clue: stop trying to sound like Moses and Limbaugh.
...that only works among your worshippers.
There is only one basic and fundamental right, its the right to life,
his (man's - the human individual) life, all other so called rights
are a corollary / an ancillary, of that one right.
Oh brother. Standard Randroidian LP libertarianism.
No wonder you want us to define everything!
...you are not aware that words have findable,
real and solid definitions!
(Redefined words is how they control you.)
see:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?safe=off&q=%22orwellian+linguistics%22+libertarian&btnG=Search&sitesearch=
It therefore can
only be the results of your energy (generated by your mind) that you
have a right to.
Huh?
The food you have a right to, therefore can only be the food that your
energy was used to obtain, e.g. via growing / producing or via
trade.
Those who claim the state grants rights are (1) looking for the excuse
to run away from the flip side of rights, the responibility they come
with and or (2) are the same scum who will, e.g. via the vote, violate
them. > MG
You simply give unsupported opinion.
And because you have had your vocabulary redefined
for you by your Randroidian heros, you are unable
to communicate with outsiders. That's how they like it.
Your problem is, (odds are) you never knew the original
(real) definitions, therefore you are not aware of this.
I predict that all you hear people talking about is
nonsense. Gobaly gook. Guess what? -- That's how you
sound to us.
again see:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?safe=off&q=%22orwellian+linguistics%22+libertarian&btnG=Search&sitesearch=
They have striped you of the second most vital right
of all: communication.
[/quote]
Sorry for my error.
CORRECTION:
They have stripped you of the third most vital right
of all: communication.
They have also stripped you of the second most vital right
of all: your right to think.
If you use their special definitions, then
standard logic will have you reaching their
conclusions. Your ability to think freely
has been robbed.
All they could worse to you is kill you.
Being maimed would not be as bad.
And this frightens you so badly, 10 cents says you never
went to
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?safe=off&q=%22orwellian+linguistics%22+libertarian&btnG=Search&sitesearch=
....that's cuz it would be: B L A S P H E M Y !
BTW, I that's one reason I deleted your hysterical
string of foul words and emphatic self-censorship.
You live in a very comfy world, don't you?
Ain't wild-eyed self-rightousness fun!
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Anarcissie wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Anarcissie wrote
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.
I smell gods.
[/quote]
More fool you. You cant just ignore that point about little kids, it wont go away.
[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.
My problem is that I don't know what "equalivalent
in a metaphysical sense" can possibly mean.
[/quote]
Your problem.
[quote]Valence refers (usually) to power or effect.
[/quote]
But not just to power as was originally claimed.
[quote]What does _metaphysical power_ or _metaphysical effect_ refer to?
[/quote]
Never used either term.
[quote]And what set of beings am I being held to be equivalent to?
[/quote]
Never said the either.
[quote]Humans? Old White humans? All sentient beings?
[/quote]
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
[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.
I didn't say they were rights,
[/quote]
That is what we happen to be discussing.
[quote]I said that the animals would not argue metaphysics.
[/quote]
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fellas ?
[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.
Maybe not, but that's what the paragraph I followed up seemed to be saying.
[/quote]
It wasnt.
[quote]I'm trying to clarify Demon Buddha's argument, and "so rights emanate..." is a suggestion.
[/quote]
Its a dud.
[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 |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Coburn wrote
[quote]Rod Speed wrote
David Johnston wrote
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".
He did indeed, and quite a few agreed with him when he did that, too.
And it is that agreement that lends the substance.
[/quote]
Thats very arguable when hordes didnt even consider what was declared.
[quote]It's a synonym for "obvious", and obvious is such a useful word, isn't it?
Yep.
It is sort of like the current rightard use of "clearly".
[/quote]
Not really. Its obvious that the sun usually does come up most mornings etc.
[quote]As you read the rightrded screed then this is the keyword that
normally precedes the asserted dogma presented as being factual.
[/quote]
Yes, but thats just their style. Doesnt mean that the word obvious isnt useful.
[quote]This is not an indictment of Jefferson or any one particular person or claim.
It is an illustration of what is meant by "self evident" types of axioms.
[/quote]
Indeed.
[quote]It means "I'm not going to support this claim but I expect you to accept it anyway."
You're lying now.
It is a call for agreement.
[/quote]
Not really, its much more of a proclaimation.
[quote]And an attempt to segregate and marginalize those who do not agree.
[/quote]
Or that either. They are free to disagree and when there were
a number of amendments to the bill of rights, clearly there must
have been disagreements on what should have been included etc.
And its got proceedures for changing the list in the future too. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Coburn wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:17:42 -0800, Michael Gordge wrote:
On Nov 4, 6:16 am, play... at (no spam) work.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
To whome do you send your taxes?
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.
What the moronic brain damaged fail to understand is that
governments are entrusted to accomplish tasks that the individual
cannot. There is no real hope for people like Michael Gordge.
[/quote]
He's not a person, he's a sheep. His freudian slip about ewes proves that.
[quote]There is a fundamental religious affliction that will
keep them in an infantile state for all their lives.
[/quote]
Its not religious so much, more just mindless fundamentalism.
[quote]That's seemingly a positive statement.
Cockhead.
Allow me.
Cockhead.
[/quote]
Wota stunningly rational line of argument.
[quote]Clue: stop trying to sound like Moses and Limbaugh.
Why are sounding like Moses and Limbaugh?
Huh?
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.
He gets one thing right and believes that this one fundamental
proposition can extend to define the entire galaxy.
[/quote]
And flaunts his obsession with ewes too. No surprise that it ended up in New Zealand. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 9:32 am, play... at (no spam) work.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
[quote] In googlegroups.com> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Immortalist said
about:
Re: More on: "What is a Right?"
On Oct 31, (Doug Bashford) wrote:
=A0in sci.econ, .googlegroups.com
=A0On, 24 Oct 2009(PDT), Immortalist said:
...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
That's very pretty. I like that!
It's wrong, tho.
You seem to be confusing the positive with the normative,
the "is" with the "aught."
The only "aught" is whether you want to become a citizen and give up
some of your rights to be violent to the State or become a drifter.
In who's mind is that argument!?
Certainly not mine!
Must you burn straw men to make yours?
[/quote]
It was sarcasm sorry, I just thought your statement was that absurd at
first.
Value judgements
The discovery of the pleasure centres in the brain has fundamental
consequences for philosophy and practical affairs. It influences our
ideas about the aims of human actions, which are basic to all social,
political, and moral theories. It is not possible any longer to
consider that human aims and values are set by some transcendent,
intuitive process that is as Wittgenstein put it 'not in the world'.
We know now that they are basically regulated by the organization and
activities of certain parts of the brain, however much they may be
complicated and varied by culture and experience. Some recent
philosophers have accordingly changed ground from the attack on
naturalism, and they see the problem rather as a need to find out
what is the special
character of statements
about values.
It may help to discuss them. One way of putting it is that if value
statements are accepted by the listener it is implied that he will do
something. Some philosophers have compared statements of value to
imperatives, and this agrees with our idea that decisions about value
spring from the effort to meet needs.
Value judgements include
statements about what is
good and what people
ought to do.
They contrast with statements
of fact, whose acceptance
does not (necessarily)
entail action.
'It is raining' is merely factual. 'You ought not to hit that child'
implies a value judgement. One way of putting this is that value
statements are prescriptive, not purely descriptive (Hare 1963).
Another terminology is that;
value statements are practical,
while purely factual statements
are theoretical (Quinton 1973).
The great question is then, can we find a basis for prescriptive
statements in descriptive ones? Broadly speaking naturalists hold that
you can and antinaturalists still maintain that you cannot. Hare says,
for example,
'If asked why are strawberries good you can say they taste nice and
are sweet, but this does not define goodness.' Moore's way of putting
it was, 'If I am asked what is good my answer is that good is good and
that is the end of the matter.'
Similarly, as he says, one cannot define yellowness—yellow is yellow.
But how could one describe it except as that which is experienced with
light of a certain wavelength? Instead of trying to define yellowness
we search for the conditions outside and inside the body in which we
experience it. The whole of physics consists in making such enquiries.
Similarly we can look for the conditions that we associate with
goodness both outside and inside.
Quinton's reply to Hare's challenge about the strawberries is that by
strawberries are good (we mean) they belong to the class of fruit that
most people enjoy. He also says:
Most of the judgements of value about which there is some sort of
consensus of opinion are just what they would be if to ascribe value
to something were to assert that it is such as to give satisfaction to
people in general in the long run (p. 366).
To evaluate something is to say something about its capacity for
giving satisfaction. This of course is a controversial position, to
which many philosophers have objected, and we shall have to take a lot
of trouble to defend it, especially when we come to consider
judgements about ethics and morals. The point is that the biologist
sees that at least part of the basis of judgements of value lies in
the fact that all living actions are directed towards aims or
objectives, which are determined by their fundamental programs. The
programs we have inherited tell us to continue to promote life. Every
creature organizes its activities so as to attempt to follow this
instruction, though it may interpret it in such a manner that its
actions even lead to its own individual death.
If we can show that in every human being there are appetitive
mechanisms at work in all the programs of the brain, then surely we
can no longer continue to hold that 'good is good is the end of the
matter'. These systems provide the stimulants for all the aims of self-
maintenance that constitute living. J. S. Mill's thesis that pleasure
alone is the object of desire is an understatement. All cerebral
operations are related in some way to the set of standards and aims
dictated initially by our genes. But of course the cerebral programs
that we learn are so immensely complicated that they may seem to show
little connection with the basic standards set by the genes and the
hypothalamus. It is characteristic of humans that they learn to obtain
satisfaction in many different ways. But if the reward centres are not
working even the most refined cultural or religious programs act in
vain. The individual becomes unhappy and depressed, useless to himself
and others and, ultimately, suicidal.
Many people have a different and less complicated sort of 'belief
about human values, relating them to a divine source. Goodness is what
God wills us to do, as he has shown in the Scriptures and life of,
say, Christ, Buddha, or Mahomet. All human beliefs are to be respected
and studied, but when we look at religious beliefs we shall find that
they too are the product of people, which have involved action by many
parts of their brains including the reward centres we have been
discussing. This does not mean that we shall find them ultimately
either right or wrong, there is very little we can say about
ultimates. But we can now say something about the origins of human
beliefs just as we can about the origins of our desires and fears.
They are all the products of our human nature and the complicated
cultural conditions that this nature has brought about. I am claiming
that we are more likely to reach useful and satisfactory conclusions
by considering this knowledge about origins than by assuming that our
values are set by a divinely endowed inner imperative.
We now know that satisfaction and happiness depend upon the proper
functioning of certain reward centres in the brain. If these are not
working well, no actions, or indeed thoughts, will produce
satisfaction or happiness. These areas are necessary for satisfactory
individual and social life, though not of course sufficient in
themselves. This does not tell us that happiness is in the
hypothalamus or that it is noradrenaline—we all know that it is simply
happiness just as yellow is yellowness. What we now know is a great
deal more about its origins and how to obtain it. It may well be
objected that there is nothing new in all this, everyone knows that
human beings are influenced by needs and desires and seek happiness.
What is new is the knowledge of the unity of the whole brain program,
and the part that the centres that generate needs play in it. Already
with still imperfect knowledge we can see something of the relations
between the operations of the hypothalamus and basal forebrain centres
and the frontal areas of the cortex. Together these set the 'tone' of
operations of the parts of the cortex involved in even the most
abstract operations of thinking.
Programs of the brain.
J. Z. Young 1978
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198575459/
[quote]By consenting to be a member of a community, citizens consent to a
Social Contract. They agree to abide by the decisions of the majority,
because the community is a body which is governed by the majority.
Government by Consent of the Governed.
More or less, yes.
In essence the social contract theory is an agreement whereby people
accept certain restrictions on them for the benefit of society.
Yup.
[/quote]
In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a form of altruism in
which one organism provides a benefit to another in the expectation of
future reciprocation. This is equivalent to the Tit for tat strategy
in game theory. It would only be expected to evolve in the presence of
a mechanism to identify and punish "cheaters". An example of
reciprocal altruism is blood-sharing in the vampire bat, in which bats
feed regurgitated blood to those who have not collected much blood
themselves knowing that they themselves may someday benefit from this
same donation; cheaters are remembered by the colony and ousted from
this collaboration.
In a series of ground-breaking contributions to biology in the early
1970s Robert Trivers introduced the theories of reciprocal altruism
(1971), parental investment (1972), and parent-offspring conflict
(1974). Trivers' paper "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism" (1971)
elaborates the mathematics of reciprocal altruism and includes human
reciprocal altruism as one of the three examples used to illustrate
the model, arguing that "it can be shown that the details of the
psychological system that regulates this altruism can be explained by
this model." In particular, Trivers argues for the following
characteristics as functional processes subserving reciprocal
altruism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism
[quote]Social contract theory is the view that morality is founded solely on
uniform social agreements that serve the best interests of those who
make the agreement.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/soc-cont.htm
(1) Human rights, or natural rights, are rights which some hold to be
"inalienable" and belonging to all humans, according to (2) natural
law. Such rights are thought, by proponents, to be necessary for
freedom and the maintenance of a "reasonable" quality of life.
You need to clean that up. "Inalienable" in no way
implies natural or holy. It means non-transferable.
Such as; one can't sell oneself into slavery.
[/quote]
Inalienable means not made for other uses. A piece of toilet paper is
inalienably for wiping and would be hard to use as a fork for eating.
Humans just come with necessary aspects which allow the individual to
move, eat, fart, etc...
[quote]Quick definitions (inalienable)
adjective: incapable of being repudiated or transferred to
another
adjective: not subject to forfeiture
inalienable: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary,
Date: circa 1645
incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred
inalienable rights
1. Natural Rights: political theory that maintains that an individual
enters into society with certain basic rights and that no government
can deny these rights.
I really don't know why you post the definition,
I think everybody here has a good feel for it.
[/quote]
Am I to just trust you on that and move?
[quote]The modern idea of natural rights grew out of
the ancient and medieval doctrines of natural law , i.e., the belief
that people, as creatures of nature and God, should live their lives
and organize their society on the basis of rules and precepts laid
down by nature or God.
Not exactly. Those were done away with by the Dark Ages.
It would be a travesty to imply that rights are historically
the way things were, just as implying or assuming that
a strong middle class is natural. These are the exceptions
to history.
[/quote]
If every man's political opinion is governed by self-interest, but
self-interest consists of two parts, one of which is peculiar to the
individual, while the other is common to all the members of the
community. If the citizens have no opportunity of striking log-rolling
bargains with each other, their individual interests, being divergent,
will cancel out, and there will be left a resultant which will
represent their common interest; this resultant is the general will,
then this accumulation process can sometimes lead to harmful results
for some or even all..
http://www.garretwilson.com/books/reviews/historywesternphilosophy.html
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Poli/PoliHill.htm
Tyranny of wills is your prescription, the unkowing herd wherever it
may lead or the single tyrant whatever he selfishly desires? How about
instead of the court of last resort being a herd or a king, we produce
the individual's rights, negative and positive, to become the boundry
in which chaos is repelled?
A tyrant is a single ruler holding vast, if not absolute power through
a state or in an organization. The term carries connotations of a
harsh and cruel ruler who places his/her own interests or the
interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general
population which s/he governs or controls. This mode of rule is
referred to as tyranny. Many individual rulers or government officials
are accused of tyranny, with the label almost always a matter of
controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant
The phrase tyranny of the majority, used in discussing systems of
democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which
decisions made by a majority under that system would place that
majority's interests so far above a minority's interest as to be
comparable in cruelty to "tyrannical" despots.
Limits on the decisions that can be made by such majorities, such as
constitutional limits on the powers of parliament and use of a bill of
rights in a parliamentary democracy, are commonly meant to avoid the
problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
[quote]The modern idea of natural rights grew out the
Age of Enlightenment; as all the philosophers you cite
below. Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence
was his poetry, but the ideas were boilerplate Enlightenment.
The U.S. Constition was no such document, as I argued.
Age of Enlightenment:
With the growth of the idea of individualism,
especially in the 17th cent., natural law doctrines were modified to
stress the fact that individuals, because they are natural beings,
have rights that cannot be violated by anyone or by any society.
Perhaps the most famous formulation of this doctrine is found in the
writings of John Locke . Locke assumed that humans were by nature
rational and good, and that they carried into political society the
same rights they had enjoyed in earlier stages of society, foremost
among them being freedom of worship, the right to a voice in their own
government, and the right of property. Jean Jacques Rousseau attempted
to reconcile the natural rights of the individual with the need for
social unity and cooperation through the idea of the social contract .
The most important elaboration of the idea of natural rights came in
the North American colonies, however, where the writings of Thomas
Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Paine made of the natural rights
theory a powerful justification for revolution. The classic
expressions of natural rights are the English Bill of Rights (1689),
the American Declaration of Independence (1776), the French
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), the first 10
amendments to the Constitution of the United States (known as the Bill
of Rights, 1791), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the
United Nations (1948).
And history has largly erased those.
Mostly by the followers of these political philosophers:
Edmund Burke(1729-1797)
Leo Strauss (1899 – 1973)
Russell Kirk (1918 – 1994)
Unlike Locke they assumed that humans were by nature
evil, greedy, violent, animalistic, lazy, and so forth.
Loosely, they and their modern followers all distrust (or worse)
the middle class and the individual, individual thought, and
believe in rulership by the upper class or wealthy, and believe
that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and
perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/n1/natrlrig.asp
[/quote]
Does this apply to tribal life in primitive places where war was used
for more than controlling the masses, namely controlling a threatening
enemy?
[quote]2. Natural Law: theory that some laws are basic and fundamental to
human nature and are discoverable by human reason without reference to
specific legislative enactments or judicial decisions. Natural law is
opposed to positive law, which is human-made, conditioned by history,
and subject to continuous change.
blah blah blah...the definition is irrelevant.
Where's the argument?
[/quote]
The propositions declared such and such as the case. That is an
argument. Maybe you really mean what is the relavance or what do
rights have to do with rights.
[quote]..........snip
Since when can a moral claim stop an immoral man?
A right is a claim that can be backed up by the
strong *right* *arm.* =A0...by the war club, by the
long sword, by the gun, by a tribe, mob, or government.
We have the origins of two words here:
*right arm* - rights
*arms* =A0- weapons
=A0Many rights can be purchased, such
as land ownership bestows the right to deny
people the right to exist - on your property,
- the right to expel people. Etc...
=A0Many rights can be removed from an individual by a
tribe, mob, government, or other arm, such as by jail
or other law or decree by the owner of the largest right
arm at any given time. =A0
If the owner of the largest right arm at any given time
is also one that endures, it is called stable government
and is applauded by other enduring owners of large arms
and rights. =A0
I don't like that definition, but that's the way it is.
I'd much rather rights were natural or god given, etc,
which indeed I will claim next time I attempt to
overthrow an existing owner and allocator of rights.
(The last thing to mature in cognitive ability seems to
be the ability to distinguish the positive from the normative.
In fact, it seems many people never mature this far.)
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.
...........snip
They are
said to be "negative rights" in that they stipulate things that other
people may not do in their interactions with some individual. Your
right to life says that I may not kill you. My right to liberty says
that you may not enslave me.
Now you are talking about the US Constitution's
Bill of Rights.
The only reason they are called "negative rights"
and such, is because that's the way most were written,
they bestow no rights, they *limit government powers.*
...About the same as: "they *limit government rights.*"
You are talking about paper work, or one government's
definition, not a more universal definition.
Why did they write it that way? Keep in mind,
the U.S. Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional.
One was written to destroy a government, one to
create and hold a government. The constitution could hardly
cite god-given rights if it intended to own and control them. =A0
The Bill of Rights also cites (common law) rights beyond
the enumerated rights.
Burke Strauss Kirk
Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Leo Strauss (1899 – 1973)
Russell Kirk (1918 – 1994)
Check them out.
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:06:59 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
[quote]Michael Coburn wrote
Rod Speed wrote
David Johnston wrote
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".
He did indeed, and quite a few agreed with him when he did that, too.
And it is that agreement that lends the substance.
Thats very arguable when hordes didnt even consider what was declared.
It's a synonym for "obvious", and obvious is such a useful word,
isn't it?
Yep.
It is sort of like the current rightard use of "clearly".
Not really. Its obvious that the sun usually does come up most mornings
etc.
As you read the rightrded screed then this is the keyword that normally
precedes the asserted dogma presented as being factual.
Yes, but thats just their style. Doesnt mean that the word obvious isnt
useful.
This is not an indictment of Jefferson or any one particular person or
claim. It is an illustration of what is meant by "self evident" types
of axioms.
Indeed.
It means "I'm not going to support this claim but I expect you to
accept it anyway."
You're lying now.
It is a call for agreement.
Not really, its much more of a proclaimation.
And an attempt to segregate and marginalize those who do not agree.
Or that either. They are free to disagree and when there were a number
of amendments to the bill of rights, clearly there must have been
disagreements on what should have been included etc.
And its got proceedures for changing the list in the future too.
[/quote]
The discussion was about the DCI; not the Constitution.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:47 pm
|
|