More on: "What is a Right?"
Doug Bashford
in sci.econ, .googlegroups.com
On, 24 Oct 2009(PDT), Immortalist said about:
What is a Right?
> ...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."
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.* ...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* - weapons
Many 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...
Many 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.
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.
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.
The Bill of Rights also cites (common law) rights beyond
the enumerated rights.
>
> Modern Political Philosophy by Richard Hudelson
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist.
Rod Speed
> Immortalist wrote
>> ...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."
Yes.
> Since when can a moral claim stop an immoral man?
Since never.
> A right is a claim that can be backed up by the strong
> *right* *arm.* ...by the war club, by the long sword,
> by the gun, by a tribe, mob, or government.
A hell of a lot of rights dont need any of that.
> We have the origins of two words here:
> *right arm* - rights
> *arms* - weapons
That's very pretty. It's wrong, tho.
> Many rights can be purchased, such as land ownership
Yes.
> bestows the right to deny people the right to exist
> - on your property, - the right to expel people. Etc...
Nope, just the right to say what happens on that land within limits.
> Many 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.
It aint about the largest right arm.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
Thats just plain wrong too.
> In fact, it seems many people never mature this far.)
Bogusly loaded language.
>> 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.
>> 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.
> The Bill of Rights also cites (common law) rights beyond
> the enumerated rights.
>> Modern Political Philosophy by Richard Hudelson
> - If you scratch a cynic,
> - you'll find a defeated idealist.
Even sillier.
Michael Gordge
> in sci.econ, .googlegroups.com
> On, 24 Oct 2009(PDT), Immortalist said about:
> What is a Right?
>
> > ...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.
..........remaining non-sense snipped.
Were you hoping that your argument was somehow different to the OP's?
MG
Doug Bashford
Michael Gordge said about:
Re: More on: "What is a Right?"
> On Nov 1, 4:19=A0am, (Doug Bashford) wrote:
> > =A0On, 24 Oct 2009(PDT), Immortalist said about:
> > =A0What is a Right?
> >
> > > ...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. =A0I like that!
> > It's wrong, tho.
>
> ..........remaining non-sense snipped.
>
>
> Were you hoping that your argument was somehow different to the OP's?
> MG
Nope. I don't know an OP is.
You and Rod Speed make the same logical argument
as my dog when I step on his tail.
The main difference is, I'm not inclined to pat your head
.
James A. Donald
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.
Rod Speed
> (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. Dont be TOO surprised when he just laughs in your stupid pig ignorant face.
Try telling that to Stalin. Dont be TOO surprised when he just laughs in your stupid pig ignorant face.
Demon Buddha
> in sci.econ, .googlegroups.com
> On, 24 Oct 2009(PDT), Immortalist said about:
> What is a Right?
>
>
>> ...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."
>
> 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.* ...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* - weapons
Um... not quite. I fully agree with everything you write except for
one thing - you confuse with a right and the right to a means. A given
right implies the right to the means of exercising it. My right to my
own life - to preserve it from harm and termination at the hands of
external influences - implies the right to the means of exercise. This
would include instrumentalities such as a knife, my fists, a gun, and so
forth. It also includes behaviors such as shooting someone or simply
running away if possible.
This may seem a subtle distinction, but I feel it is an important one
to be aware of. I believe it is fundamental.
>
> Many 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...
Not really a purchase of the actual right. The right follows as a
result of the purchase of such land. It is part and parcel of the
condition of one's ownership of a given tract.
>
> Many 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.
No. Rights can never be removed or altered. They are what they are.
They can only be abridged or otherwise violated. In the case of
criminal debt, rights are abridged in accordance with law. While this
can get sticky in pedantic philosophical exchanges, real life demands
this be done. For example, it would probably not work out too well were
violent felons allowed access to firearms.
> I don't like that definition, but that's the way it is.
But that isn't really a definition - it is more an observation of
material fact. These are not the same things.
> I'd much rather rights were natural or god given, etc,
How do you know that they are not?
> which indeed I will claim next time I attempt to
> overthrow an existing owner and allocator of rights.
Irrelevant to the circumstance. As you pointed out, relevance lies in
prevailing against an opponent. God given or otherwise, a right means
nothing if one cannot successfully exercise it.
>
> (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.)
Here we agree.
Coffee's For Closers
jam...@echeque.com says...
There are plenty of situations where immoral people cooperate.
Lynch mobs. Street gangs and mafia. Genocide perpetrators.
Oppressive governments.
OTOH, many immoral people THINK that they are righteous, and that
can contribute to their cooperation.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
tg
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.
Likewise, you may have the right to possess weapons, again granted by
the instrumentality of the legal system in your jurisdiction.
>
>
> > Many 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...
>
> Not really a purchase of the actual right. The right follows as a
> result of the purchase of such land. It is part and parcel of the
> condition of one's ownership of a given tract.
>
>
There is no 'condition'. Ownership means the ability to deny use of
the thing owned to others. So one does purchase the right because
that's what owning means. Again, depending on specific laws, you will
suffer no consequence from the State or State-like jurisdiction when
you take such action to deny use to others. In some cases the State or
State-like jurisdiction will aid you in that action.
-tg
James A. Donald
<rod.sp...@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.
Michael Gordge
> Nope. I don't know an OP is.
Ewe're a fucking idiot, mortal (the OP original poster) started the
subject on rights calling them a "moral claim" and he refused to
explain the standard he used for moral, which meant his statement that
rights were a moral claim is without meaning, and ewe have contributed
nothing but stupidity.
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> 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"?
MG
Rod Speed
Thanks for sticking to the traditional attributions.
>>>> 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.
Plenty more just as immoral aint, like Cheney, Paulson etc etc etc.
Michael Gordge
wrote:
>
> There are plenty of situations where immoral people cooperate.
> Lynch mobs. Street gangs and mafia. Genocide perpetrators.
> Oppressive governments.
>
> OTOH, many immoral people THINK that they are righteous, and that
> can contribute to their cooperation.
Exactly, morality without a standard is just a noise when spoken and a
meaningless squiggle when written.
MG
Demon Buddha
>> 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.
>
> Likewise, you may have the right to possess weapons, again granted by
> the instrumentality of the legal system in your jurisdiction.
Again, no. Not granted - either respected and protected, or infringed,
abridged, and thereby violated.
>
>
>>
>>> Many 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...
>> Not really a purchase of the actual right. The right follows as a
>> result of the purchase of such land. It is part and parcel of the
>> condition of one's ownership of a given tract.
>>
>>
>
> There is no 'condition'. Ownership means the ability to deny use of
> the thing owned to others.
Right. IOW a "condition", i.e., a state of being as opposed to a
"requirement".
tg
> 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?
-tg
James A. Donald
> > immoral man will usually find himself outnumbered,
> > and very possibly, dead.
Coffee's For Closers
> There are plenty of situations where immoral people
> cooperate. Lynch mobs.
Read up on the contemporary sources about "lynch mobs".
By and large, they were the good guys. They executed
people, mostly white people, on the basis of crimes
committed. Here is how Leland Stanford, who founded
Stanford University and became governor of California,
got his start in politics:
http://www.lathroprush.com/2008-Articles/November/History-PDF/VIGILANTE_JUSTICE.pdf
> Street gangs and mafia.
I don't know about street gangs, but I have often
remarked on the superior manners and decency of mafia as
compared with university professors.
> Genocide perpetrators. Oppressive governments.
Who tend to wind up murdering their supporters and each
other. The vast majority of the North Vietnamese
communist party was executed by the North Vietnamese
Communist party.
These always operate on the basis of substitute
morality, of extremely high, though false and deluded,
moral standards. No one ever massacres the men and the
children in order to steal the cattle and rape the
women. Instead they heroically liquidate the kulaks for
the greater good of the proletariat. When the greater
good of the proletariat fails to eventuate, they
conclude that they are being infiltrated by kulaks or
capitalists or some such, and proceed to execute each
other.
That they have a morality, enables them to cooperate.
That the morality is false and deluded means that this
cooperation has unintended consequences.
As several historians have told us, most infamously
David Chandler, the Khmer Rouge leadership were saints.
Cambodia is largely a flood plain, with most food coming
from land that is regularly under water. Thus if the
central planners were wise and good, centrally planned
agriculture could produce much more food, much more
efficiently, than private agriculture where each peasant
acts without regard for the effects on those downstream
of him, and without knowledge of what peasants upstream
of him are doing.
The Khmer Rouge leadership decided on a program of very
rapid economic development, development by command.
Agriculture and industry based on agriculture would come
first.
To ensure compliance, the Khmer Rouge prohibited
peasants from obtaining food from sources that were
independent of centrally planned water, such as fishing,
fruit trees, and mountain leap rice, and commanded them
to focus on paddy rice, which depends on the flow of
water being controlled, depends on the correct amount of
water being applied at the correct time. They also
issued a flood of very detailed commands about ditches
and dykes to control the flow of water, so that the
correct water would be applied to the rice at the
correct time.
Of course since the central planners issuing these
commands were far away from the water that was flowing,
the mud that had to be moved, and the people that had to
move it, these commands were mostly nonsense.
The unfortunates receiving these commands from the
center found it very difficult to tell the center that
they were screwing up. The high command correctly and
reasonably believed that there were numerous
conspiracies, both internal and foreign sponsored,
seeking to overthrow the high command, and incorrectly
and unreasonably believed that any failure or problem
was a result of the malevolent activities of these
conspiracies.
Thus when someone in the provinces, in command of a few
thousand slaves received a disastrous command the safest
course was to attempt to obey it, no matter what the
likely cost in human lives.
The high command would from time to time shift large
numbers of slaves from one task to another, without
keeping track of how many people were assigned to what,
so they never realized that the number of captives was
diminishing at a disturbing rate.
Because no one dared tell them what was really
happening, they honestly believed that the sacrifices
they commanded were successful and popular, and rapidly
building a new and prosperous Cambodia, when in fact
huge numbers of people were dying, and Cambodia was
collapsing to the stone age.
They intended to do good to people, and honestly
believed they were highly successful in doing so. Like
most similarly saintly do gooders, they intended to do
good to people by confiscating their property, by
enslaving them, and by torturing and killing anyone so
benighted, selfish, and wicked as to stand in the way of
all the good that they intended to do.
When all the good that they intended to do failed to
eventuate, the Khmer Rouge proceeded to execute most of
the Khmer Rouge.
Rod Speed
> Coffee's For Closers wrote
>>> 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.
> Read up on the contemporary sources about "lynch mobs".
Dont need to.
> By and large, they were the good guys.
Like hell they were. In spades in the south when blacks were the target.
> They executed people, mostly white people,
Another lie with the US.
> on the basis of crimes committed.
In fact on the basis of CLAIMS of crimes committed, another matter entirely.
> Here is how Leland Stanford, who founded Stanford University
> and became governor of California, got his start in politics:
> http://www.lathroprush.com/2008-Articles/November/History-PDF/VIGILANTE_JUSTICE.pdf
Irrelevant to what the bulk of them were and who the bulk of the corpses were.
>> Street gangs and mafia.
> I don't know about street gangs,
Or anything else either.
> but I have often remarked on the superior manners and
> decency of mafia as compared with university professors.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of a what a terminal
fuckwit you have always been. Not too many university professors
had their opposition gunned down, fuckwit.
>> Genocide perpetrators. Oppressive governments.
> Who tend to wind up murdering their supporters and each other.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
> The vast majority of the North Vietnamese
> communist party was executed by the
> North Vietnamese Communist party.
> These always operate on the basis of substitute morality,
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
> of extremely high, though false and deluded, moral standards.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
> No one ever massacres the men and the children
> in order to steal the cattle and rape the women.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
> Instead they heroically liquidate the kulaks
> for the greater good of the proletariat.
Have fun explaining what Adolf did to the jews and poles on that basis.
And what Mouseolini did in north africa in spades.
And what the Han chinese did in Tibet in spades.
> When the greater good of the proletariat fails to eventuate,
> they conclude that they are being infiltrated by kulaks or
> capitalists or some such, and proceed to execute each other.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
That wasnt what Beria or Stalin was about.
> That they have a morality, enables them to cooperate.
> That the morality is false and deluded means that this
> cooperation has unintended consequences.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
> As several historians have told us, most infamously
> David Chandler, the Khmer Rouge leadership were saints.
He's the only fool actually stupid enough to run that mindlessly silly line.
> Cambodia is largely a flood plain, with most food
> coming from land that is regularly under water.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
> Thus if the central planners were wise and good, centrally
> planned agriculture could produce much more food, much
> more efficiently, than private agriculture where each peasant
> acts without regard for the effects on those downstream
> of him, and without knowledge of what peasants upstream
> of him are doing.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
> The Khmer Rouge leadership decided on a program of very
> rapid economic development, development by command.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
> Agriculture and industry based on agriculture would come first.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
> To ensure compliance, the Khmer Rouge prohibited
> peasants from obtaining food from sources that were
> independent of centrally planned water, such as fishing,
> fruit trees, and mountain leap rice, and commanded them
> to focus on paddy rice, which depends on the flow of
> water being controlled, depends on the correct amount of
> water being applied at the correct time. They also
> issued a flood of very detailed commands about ditches
> and dykes to control the flow of water, so that the correct
> water would be applied to the rice at the correct time.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
Les Cargill
it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
> James A. Donald wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@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.
Dont be TOO surprised when they ALL just laugh in your silly little pig ignorant face.
Michael Gordge
>
> States do not grant rights. Nobody does. These are born-in qualities
> of humans.
Only human individuals exist, the human individual can not grant to
another human individual, what that human individual already has, his/
her own life, the right to life can only ever be violated, never
granted.
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. It therefore can
only be the results of your energy (generated by your mind) that you
have a right to.
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
Doug Bashford
On 02 Nov 2009, Demon Buddha said about:
> Doug Bashford wrote:
> > in sci.econ, .googlegroups.com
> > On, 24 Oct 2009(PDT), Immortalist said about:
> > What is a Right?
> >
> >
> >> ...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."
> >
> > 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.* ...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* - weapons
>
> Um... not quite. I fully agree with everything you write except for
> one thing - you confuse with a right and the right to a means.
I don't know what you are trying to say.
Natural (or god-given) right Vs. power-given right?
> A given
> right implies the right to the means of exercising it.
You imply a natural right does not?
> My right to my
> own life - to preserve it from harm and termination at the hands of
> external influences - implies the right to the means of exercise. This
> would include instrumentalities such as a knife, my fists, a gun, and so
> forth. It also includes behaviors such as shooting someone or simply
> running away if possible.
Loosely, of course!
>
> This may seem a subtle distinction, but I feel it is an important one
> to be aware of. I believe it is fundamental.
Then please expand, I don't get it.
> >
> > Many 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...
>
> Not really a purchase of the actual right.
Your below argument does not support that.
> The right follows as a
> result of the purchase of such land. It is part and parcel of the
> condition of one's ownership of a given tract.
The label on a can of corn: same-same. You purchased
the label too. The paint on your car: same-same.
A bundled purchase.
With land comes several rights beyond the ownership of
other possesions, as noted. This is a main reason
why land ownership is by far the most controversial
of ownership rights. Many of these rights strip
other's rights, such as free speech, assembly, etc,
that I include as the the right to deny existance
(tresspass).
Another example: In a libertarian world where everything
is privatized, where could you assemble or gather signatures
without getting sombody's permission? Answer: only on YOUR
property. If your ideas are unpopular, you have just been
effectivley silenced.
Now where are your rights?
> >
> > Many 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.
>
> No. Rights can never be removed or altered. They are what they are.
They are what they are???
In jail they aint even on a piece of paper.
That's what they *ARE.*
> They can only be abridged or otherwise violated. In the case of
> criminal debt, rights are abridged in accordance with law.
That does not disagree with what I've written.
> While this
> can get sticky in pedantic philosophical exchanges, real life demands
> this be done.
This is hardly a technicality! You said it best:
=== "God given or otherwise, a right means nothing
=== if one cannot successfully exercise it."
"means nothing"
> For example, it would probably not work out too well were
> violent felons allowed access to firearms.
>
> > I don't like that definition, but that's the way it is.
>
> But that isn't really a definition - it is more an observation of
> material fact. These are not the same things.
True enough. Most often.
>
> > I'd much rather rights were natural or god given, etc,
>
> How do you know that they are not?
You said it best:
=== "God given or otherwise, a right means nothing
=== if one cannot successfully exercise it."
If in jail, or at work, or without land or in a world of all
private property, one one cannot successfully exercise
several rights. These are only a few examples.
=== "God given or otherwise, a right means nothing
=== if one cannot successfully exercise it."
"means nothing"
>
> > which indeed I will claim next time I attempt to
> > overthrow an existing owner and allocator of rights.
>
> Irrelevant to the circumstance.
...My feeble attempt at humor and to segue into:
"...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."
Keep in mind, neither of those papers are self-evident,
natural, nor god-given, despite the assumptions of many,
or the claims of those pieces of paper themselves.
> As you pointed out, relevance lies in prevailing against
> an opponent. God given or otherwise, a right means
> nothing if one cannot successfully exercise it.
> >
> > (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.)
>
> Here we agree.
Cool!
Doug Bashford
Michael Gordge said about:
> You ought concern yourself more with giving a meaning to rights - How
> does the state determine that "certain criteria"? > MG
The reason nobody replies to you repetative demands
is that everybody but you speaks English or owns
a dictionary and we can work Google.
You want to talk about words. Educate yourself, and
you can move on up to concepts & stuff.
You really seem kinda silly. Young?
Doug Bashford
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009, Demon Buddha said about:
> 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.
In what part of the body are they located?
Do any non-human things have rights?
Do puppies have a right to not be randomly skinned alive, etc?
What about a forest?
If not, why not?
Expand please.
> >
> > Likewise, you may have the right to possess weapons, again granted by
> > the instrumentality of the legal system in your jurisdiction.
>
> Again, no. Not granted - either respected and protected, or infringed,
> abridged, and thereby violated.
Prove it please.
"God given or otherwise, a right means nothing
if one cannot successfully exercise it."
> >>> Many 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...
> >> Not really a purchase of the actual right. The right follows as a
> >> result of the purchase of such land. It is part and parcel of the
> >> condition of one's ownership of a given tract.
Rights and land are a bundled purchase, some of those
rights go beyond all other kinds of ownership rights,
as I explained in more detail in another post.
(I'll not repeat it, but that argument is needed.)
Some of those rights are not internationally recognized.
For example, in England, the People retain walk-about
rights in pasture lands. The farmers build gates
to keep their fences from being trampled.
So is America better? Or is England?
And what of my public property rights?
...say on National Forest land?...to build
a bonfire and walk in any direction, and sleep
anywhere, to shoot, without telling or asking
a soul, or mine it or graze livestock
and so on (in most areas)?
No, they are NOT "part and parcel...."
> > There is no 'condition'. Ownership means the ability to deny use of
> > the thing owned to others.
Not always. I mention this simple to deny the
claims of absolutes here. ...Seemingly; magical or
superhuman or god-given powers.
If it's not Absolute, then it's in the paperwork.
...given & enforced by those with power, else that right
exists nowhere but the imagination.
People seem to be confusing the moral bifurcation
"right & wrong," with "rights" & their absence,
which may not always be opposites.
> Right. IOW a "condition", i.e., a state of being as opposed to a
> "requirement".
I don't know what you are trying to say there.
Doug Bashford
Michael Gordge said about:
> On Nov 3, 7:19=A0am, Demon Buddha <Nob...@no.where> wrote:
> >
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 States do not grant rights. =A0Nobody does. =A0These are =
> born-in qualities
> > of humans.
>
> Only human individuals exist,
To whome do you send your taxes?
> the human individual can not grant to another human individual,
> what that human individual already has, his/
> her own life,
That's seemingly a positive statement.
The thing that prevents this is in which organ?
Or is it outside the body?
How big is it? What color?
> the right to life can only ever be violated, never
> granted.
That's seemingly a normitive statement.
You mix the positive and the normitive in the same sentence
and seemingly call them equiv. That would be a logical fallacy.
Care to clarify?
Allow me. Your seemingly a positive statement was intended
as a normitive statement in your guts. However your wording
prevents us from knowing/debating your argument.
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.
They have striped you of the second most vital right
of all: communication.
Demon Buddha
> On Nov 2, 5:19 pm, Demon Buddha <Nob...@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 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.
Demon Buddha
> OTOH, many immoral people THINK that they are righteous,
Good point. I have said many times that it is highly unlikely that
uncle Adolph woke up every morning asking himself what new Eville(tm)
might he foist upon the world. He and his cadre seemed to really
believe they were ushering in a golden age for Germany. Roads to hell
and all that...
*Anarcissie*
> tg wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 5:19 pm, Demon Buddha <Nob...@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. Value
implies choice or preference. What is being preferred
over what, and by whom? 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.
> 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. 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. But then, so do hierarchy and slavery.
Rod Speed
> Demon Buddha <Nob...@no.where> wrote
>> tg 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.
> 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.
>> 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.
> 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.
Immortalist
> in sci.econ, .googlegroups.com
> On, 24 Oct 2009(PDT), Immortalist said about:
> What is a Right?
>
> > ...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.
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.
In essence the social contract theory is an agreement whereby people
accept certain restrictions on them for the benefit of society.
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.
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. 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. 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).
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. The concept of natural law
originated with the Greeks and received its most important formulation
in Stoicism . The Stoics believed that the fundamental moral
principles that underlie all the legal systems of different nations
were reducible to the dictates of natural law. This idea became
particularly important in Roman legal theory, which eventually came to
recognize a common code regulating the conduct of all peoples and
existing alongside the individual codes of specific places and times
(see natural rights ). Christian philosophers such as St. Thomas
Aquinas perpetuated this idea, asserting that natural law was common
to all peoples—Christian and non-Christian alike—while adding that
revealed law gave Christians an additional guide for their actions. In
modern times, the theory of natural law became the chief basis for the
development by Hugo Grotius of the theory of international law. In the
17th cent., such philosophers as Spinoza and G. W. von Leibniz
interpreted natural law as the basis of ethics and morality; in the
18th cent. the teachings of Jean Jacques Rousseau , especially as
interpreted during the French Revolution, made natural law a basis for
democratic and egalitarian principles. The influence of natural law
theory declined greatly in the 19th cent. under the impact of
positivism , empiricism , and materialism . In the 20th cent., such
thinkers as Jacques Maritain saw in natural law a necessary
intellectual opposition to totalitarian theories.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/n1/natrllaw.asp
http://www.spectacle.org/0400/natural.html
http://www.libertocracy.com/Librademia/Essays/Government/%5B7-univerdefinlaw.htm
http://jim.com/rights.html
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1206.html
http://www.freecolorado.com/2003/12/naturalrights.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights
> 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.* ...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* - weapons
>
> Many 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...
>
> Many 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
> The Bill of Rights also cites (common law) rights beyond
> the enumerated rights.
>
>
>
> > Modern Political Philosophy by Richard Hudelson
David Johnston
<rod.sp...@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".
David Johnston
<Usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote:
>In article <7ecte5thrljkpjoes...@4ax.com>,
>jam...@echeque.com says...
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:19:24 GMT, pla...@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.
> Street gangs and mafia.
Street gangs and mafia function by developing a code of morality that
only applies to those within the subculture.
David Johnston
With laws.
David Johnston
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".
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."
Constantinople
> Les Cargill wrote
>
> > James A. Donald 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. 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.
Clave
news:g515f51jph0lp4shu...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:19:25 -0500, Demon Buddha <Nob...@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.
Jim
Michael Gordge
> 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.
> 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.
MG
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@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.
Thats because you have wanked yourself completely blind.
> Bandits and warlords are not noted for their endurance.
Neither are govts in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, stupid.
>>> 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?
Neither has a damned thing to do with who has the strongest right arm, stupid.
>>>> 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?
Wrong, as always.
> It means you don't have to support a claim, because its "obvious".
Gone blind yet, child ?
Rod Speed
> Coffee's For Closers <Usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote
>>> pla...@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.
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'
>> Street gangs and mafia.
> Street gangs and mafia function by developing a code
> of morality that only applies to those within the subculture.
Code, yes. Morality, pigs arse.
Rod Speed
> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote
>> tg <tgdenn...@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.
Rod Speed
> Demon Buddha <Nob...@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.
> It's a synonym for "obvious", and obvious is such a useful word, isn't it?
Yep.
> It means "I'm not going to support this claim but I expect you to accept it anyway."
You're lying now.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Les Cargill wrote
>>> James A. Donald wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@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.
Irrelevant to that stupid claim above.
And Madoff didnt.
> Power corrupts.
Didnt corrupt Churchill or FDR or JFK.
> If Madoff were acting as a government official, he would not
> only have stayed out of jail, but would be running social security.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> So if you are the scum of the earth, go into government.
Not even possible for someone like Madoff.
> And naturally enough, the scum of the earth have taken
> this very good advice, as anyone can plainly see.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
tg
> tg wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 5:19 pm, Demon Buddha <Nob...@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
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
*Anarcissie*
> Anarcissie:
I smell gods.
> > 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. 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?
> >> 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, I said that the animals would
not argue metaphysics.
> > 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. I'm trying to clarify Demon Buddha's
argument, and "so rights emanate..." is a suggestion.
Michael Coburn
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
Michael Coburn
> David Johnston wrote
>> Demon Buddha <Nob...@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.
>> 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". 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.
>> 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. And an attempt to segregate and marginalize
those who do not agree.
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 4, 6:16 am, play...@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. There is a fundamental
religious affliction that will keep them in an infantile state for all
their lives.
>> 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.
He gets one thing right and believes that this one fundamental
proposition can extend to define the entire galaxy.
Doug Bashford
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?
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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
>
> 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?
..........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
> > 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.
Demon Buddha
DOn't waste your time on this one. He has no mind to speak of.
Doug Bashford
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
In
<b8272b45-577c-4d2c...@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:17:42 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge said
about:
Re: More on: "What is a Right?"
> On Nov 4, 6:16=A0am, play...@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.
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!
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Anarcissie wrote
> I smell gods.
More fool you. You cant just ignore that point about little kids, it wont go away.
>>> 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.
Your problem.
> Valence refers (usually) to power or effect.
But not just to power as was originally claimed.
> What does _metaphysical power_ or _metaphysical effect_ refer to?
Never used either term.
> And what set of beings am I being held to be equivalent to?
Never said the either.
> Humans? Old White humans? All sentient beings?
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
>>>> 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,
That is what we happen to be discussing.
> I said that the animals would not argue metaphysics.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fellas ?
>>> 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.
It wasnt.
> I'm trying to clarify Demon Buddha's argument, and "so rights emanate..." is a suggestion.
Its a dud.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> David Johnston wrote
>>> Demon Buddha <Nob...@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.
Rod Speed
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:17:42 -0800, Michael Gordge wrote:
>
>> On Nov 4, 6:16 am, play...@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.
He's not a person, he's a sheep. His freudian slip about ewes proves that.
> There is a fundamental religious affliction that will
> keep them in an infantile state for all their lives.
Its not religious so much, more just mindless fundamentalism.
>>> That's seemingly a positive statement.
>> Cockhead.
>>> Allow me.
>> Cockhead.
Wota stunningly rational line of argument.
>>> 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.
And flaunts his obsession with ewes too. No surprise that it ended up in New Zealand.
Michael Coburn
The discussion was about the DCI; not the Constitution.
Rod Speed
>>>> Yep.
>> Indeed.
>>>> You're lying now.
It was about both, most obvious from the subject.
Michael Gordge
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
>
> >On Nov 3, 3:28 am, tg <tgdenn...@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.
Laws plucked from thin air? what laws? where did the laws come from?
MG
Michael Gordge
> The reason.........
Try dealing with the subject ewe wanking leftist knuckle-dragging
Kantian cockhead.
MG
Michael Gordge
Michael Gordge
> What the moronic brain damaged fail to understand is that governments are
> entrusted to accomplish tasks that the individual cannot.
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.
> He gets one thing right and believes that this one fundamental
> proposition can extend to define the entire galaxy.
Its the premise of all moral values ewe commie retard.
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> Its not religious so much, more just mindless fundamentalism.
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
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> 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.
>> Its not religious so much, more just mindless fundamentalism.
> 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.
I didnt say THAT was mindless fundamentalism.
> Lets read your better idea.
That govts can do what individuals cannot, like do something about arseholes
like Adolf and Hirohito etc, and even work out how to avoid full world wars
and how to drastically reduce the number of great depressions we see today.
Immortalist
> 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?
>
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/
> > 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.
>
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
> > 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.
>
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...
> 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.
>
Am I to just trust you on that and move?
> > 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.
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
Does this apply to tribal life in primitive places where war was used
for more than controlling the masses, namely controlling a threatening
enemy?
> > 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?
>
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.
*Anarcissie*
If little kids have an idea of justice, is proves there
are gods or equivalent metaphysical entities?
> >>> 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.
>
> Your problem.
That depends on whether the writer desired to
convey meaning.
Rod Speed
>>> I smell gods.
When they develop those ideas about what is fair
LONG before they can grasp the concept of religion,
it cant have anything to do with religion or gods.
>>>>> 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.
>> Your problem.
> That depends on whether the writer desired to convey meaning.
Nope, there will always be some who cant understand the simplest stuff.
You fucked up completely on that bit about little kids, got it completely backwards.
>>> Valence refers (usually) to power or effect.
>> But not just to power as was originally claimed.
>>> What does _metaphysical power_ or _metaphysical effect_ refer to?
>> Never used either term.
>>> And what set of beings am I being held to be equivalent to?
>> Never said that either.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Where are they derived from, if it's NOT from the constitution then it
is NO law at all, just some legislators fictional plans for government.
Rod Speed
> Michael Gordge wrote
>> David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote
>>> Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote
>>>> tg <tgdenn...@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.
>> Laws plucked from thin air? what laws? where did the laws come from?
> Where are they derived from, if it's NOT from the constitution then it
> is NO law at all, just some legislators fictional plans for government.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
*Anarcissie*
> >>> I smell gods.
That depends on your view of what the gods are
and how they operate, doesn't it? Many religious
people assert a claim that religious experience is
fundamental and primary, not the result of an
abstract idea. If so, children will exhibit god-
derived ideas independent of learning of related
abstractions.
In any case, I don't see how this innate sense of
justice you say you observe speaks to the problem
of whether the metaphysical notion of equality has
some kind of independent existence, which is what
we were talking about above, and why the idea of
gods was brought in. The notion of fairness could
be some kind of mental circuit that evolved to
enhance the probability of individual and group
survival. I don't know if mental circuits can be
called "rights".
> >>>>> 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.
> >> Your problem.
> > That depends on whether the writer desired to convey meaning.
> Nope, there will always be some who cant understand the simplest stuff.
>
> You fucked up completely on that bit about little kids, got it completely backwards.
I don't think so, although you're welcome to show that
the various mental states of small children are evidence
of metaphysical entities or whatever it is they're supposed
to be evidence of.
Michael Gordge
>
> That govts can do what individuals cannot, like do something about arseholes
> like Adolf and Hirohito etc,
The size of the US govt that helped to get rid of Hitler and Hirohito
was but a fraction of the disgustingly obese, bloated, parasitical,
draconian, anti-freedom, anti-human, anti-progess, thieving, anti-
business, anti-capitalist, communist inspired scumbag of arseholes
sticking their disgusting noses into every aspect of life that it has
no moral right or business getting involved in, that they have become
today.
MG
Michael Gordge
dog.com> wrote:
>
> Where are they derived from, if it's NOT from the constitution.....
So are you suggesting that the wording of the constitution was just
plucked from thin air?
I am suggesting that those who wrote or who took part in the writing
of the US constitution had spent decades studying what it was about
man, the human individual, that made him so unique and they had worked
out what it was that was needed for man, the human individual, to live
as his, the individual's, nature demands, to live by using his own
life as the standard of all his moral values.
And apart from the odd hiccup, e.g. black slaves (notwithstanding of
course that there would not be a black American today who would regret
the fact their ancestor was chosen to be a slave) apart from that, the
writers of the US Constitution got it 100% right and they would be
spinning in their grave fast enough to hook up to the National grid
watching the disgusting violations of their Constitution on an almost
hourly occurance now, by leftist / conservative commie scum who have
been running that country over the last 100 years.
MG
Rod Speed
>>>>> I smell gods.
Nope.
> Many religious people assert a claim that religious experience
> is fundamental and primary, not the result of an abstract idea.
Yes.
> If so, children will exhibit god-derived ideas
> independent of learning of related abstractions.
Wrong.
> In any case, I don't see how this innate sense
> of justice you say you observe speaks to the
> problem of whether the metaphysical notion of
> equality has some kind of independent existence,
More fool you. There is no other way it can show up in
almost all little kids that early, when it cant be trained
into them consciously or unconsiously by their parents etc.
> which is what we were talking about above,
Yes.
> and why the idea of gods was brought in.
There are no gods. Just an endless variety of crutches
for pathetically inadequate 'minds'. Basically a way of
getting fools to do what they would otherwise not do.
> The notion of fairness could be some kind of mental circuit that
> evolved to enhance the probability of individual and group survival.
There is no other possibility. And thats just another way of saying his 'born-in'
> I don't know if mental circuits can be called "rights".
Corse they can.
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> Your problem.
>>> That depends on whether the writer desired to convey meaning.
>> Nope, there will always be some who cant understand the simplest stuff.
>> You fucked up completely on that bit about little kids, got it completely backwards.
> I don't think so,
Corse you did on what I was saying that behaviour with little kids indicates.
> although you're welcome to show that the various mental
> states of small children are evidence of metaphysical
> entities or whatever it is they're supposed to be evidence of.
I actually said that that cant be due to 'gods'
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Michael Gordge wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Its not religious so much, more just mindless fundamentalism.
>>> 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.
>> I didnt say THAT was mindless fundamentalism.
>>> Lets read your better idea.
>> That govts can do what individuals cannot, like do
>> something about arseholes like Adolf and Hirohito etc,
> The size of the US govt that helped to get rid of Hitler and Hirohito
It wouldnt have happened without the US govt.
> was but a fraction of the disgustingly obese, bloated, parasitical,
> draconian, anti-freedom, anti-human, anti-progess, thieving, anti-
> business, anti-capitalist, communist inspired scumbag of arseholes
> sticking their disgusting noses into every aspect of life that it has no
> moral right or business getting involved in, that they have become today.
You're always free to fuck off to Somalia any time you decide they do it better there.
Rod Speed
> Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote
>> Where are they derived from, if it's NOT from the constitution.....
> So are you suggesting that the wording of the constitution was just plucked from thin air?
> I am suggesting that those who wrote or who took part in the writing
> of the US constitution had spent decades studying what it was about
> man, the human individual, that made him so unique and they had
> worked out what it was that was needed for man, the human
> individual, to live as his, the individual's, nature demands, to live
> by using his own life as the standard of all his moral values.
> And apart from the odd hiccup, e.g. black slaves (notwithstanding
> of course that there would not be a black American today who
> would regret the fact their ancestor was chosen to be a slave)
> apart from that, the writers of the US Constitution got it 100% right
No they didnt. If that was true, there wouldnt have been any need for any amendments.
And they wouldnt have included a mechanism to amend it either.
And they fucked up on a number off issues too, most obviously a standing army.
> and they would be spinning in their grave fast enough to hook up to
> the National grid watching the disgusting violations of their Constitution
> on an almost hourly occurance now, by leftist / conservative commie
> scum who have been running that country over the last 100 years.
Corse no rightists ever did anything like a standing army, eh ?
*Anarcissie*
Why not? If religious experience is fundamental and
primary, then it will precede abstractions about it.
> > In any case, I don't see how this innate sense
> > of justice you say you observe speaks to the
> > problem of whether the metaphysical notion of
> > equality has some kind of independent existence,
>
> More fool you. There is no other way it can show up in
> almost all little kids that early, when it cant be trained
> into them consciously or unconsiously by their parents etc.
Genetically. No gods or metaphysics required.
> > which is what we were talking about above,
>
> Yes.
>
> > and why the idea of gods was brought in.
>
> There are no gods. Just an endless variety of crutches
> for pathetically inadequate 'minds'. Basically a way of
> getting fools to do what they would otherwise not do.
>
> > The notion of fairness could be some kind of mental circuit that
> > evolved to enhance the probability of individual and group survival.
>
> There is no other possibility. And thats just another way of saying his 'born-in'
>
> > I don't know if mental circuits can be called "rights".
>
> Corse they can.
Can you explain that?
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>> Your problem.
> >>> That depends on whether the writer desired to convey meaning.
> >> Nope, there will always be some who cant understand the simplest stuff.
> >> You fucked up completely on that bit about little kids, got it completely backwards.
> > I don't think so,
>
> Corse you did on what I was saying that behaviour with little kids indicates.
>
> > although you're welcome to show that the various mental
> > states of small children are evidence of metaphysical
> > entities or whatever it is they're supposed to be evidence of.
>
> I actually said that that cant be due to 'gods'
Why not? Anything can be due to gods.
Rod Speed
>>>>>>> I smell gods.
>> Nope.
>> Yes.
>> Wrong.
> Why not?
Because there are no gods, just a vast array
of crutches for pathetically inadequate 'minds'
> If religious experience is fundamental and primary,
It isnt in little kids of that age.
> then it will precede abstractions about it.
Nope. Kids need a metal capacity to grasp
religious concepts for that to happen.
In practice they are just afraid of the dark and can have very
vivid imaginations and suck their thumbs and need night lights
etc and their parents comforting etc instead of 'gods'
>>> In any case, I don't see how this innate sense
>>> of justice you say you observe speaks to the
>>> problem of whether the metaphysical notion of
>>> equality has some kind of independent existence,
>> More fool you. There is no other way it can show up in
>> almost all little kids that early, when it cant be trained into
>> them consciously or unconsiously by their parents etc.
> Genetically. No gods or metaphysics required.
What I said below in different words. And not what you
said below, the exact opposite of what you said below.
>>> which is what we were talking about above,
>> Yes.
>>> and why the idea of gods was brought in.
>> There are no gods. Just an endless variety of crutches
>> for pathetically inadequate 'minds'. Basically a way of
>> getting fools to do what they would otherwise not do.
>>> The notion of fairness could be some kind of mental circuit that
>>> evolved to enhance the probability of individual and group survival.
>> There is no other possibility. And thats just another way of saying his 'born-in'
>>> I don't know if mental circuits can be called "rights".
>> Corse they can.
> Can you explain that?
Just did with that point about little kids and how they operate.
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> Your problem.
>>>>> That depends on whether the writer desired to convey meaning.
>>>> Nope, there will always be some who cant understand the simplest stuff.
>>>> You fucked up completely on that bit about little kids, got it
>>>> completely backwards. I don't think so,
>> Corse you did on what I was saying that behaviour with little kids indicates.
>>> although you're welcome to show that the various mental
>>> states of small children are evidence of metaphysical
>>> entities or whatever it is they're supposed to be evidence of.
>> I actually said that that cant be due to 'gods'
> Why not? Anything can be due to gods.
Nope, because there is no such animal, just an endless
variety of crutches for pathetically inadequate 'minds'
In spades with little kids who cant even grasp the concept of gods.
They do develop strong ideas about their rights tho much earlier than they do about gods.
David Johnston
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>David Johnston wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@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.
>
>Thats because you have wanked yourself completely blind.
>
>> Bandits and warlords are not noted for their endurance.
>
>Neither are govts in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, stupid.
And those governments are not called "stable" governments for just
that reason. Try again.
David Johnston
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>David Johnston wrote
>> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote
>>> tg <tgdenn...@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.
Your response has no bearing on what I said.
David Johnston
Politicians.
David Johnston
<ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
>news:g515f51jph0lp4shu...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:19:25 -0500, Demon Buddha <Nob...@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.
Yeah he did. Saying that something is a self-evident truth is a
universal claim.
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.
"assert" and "declare" being synonyms.
>
>
>> 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?
Since the person I was talking to was arguing from the stance that the
law is irrelevant to rights, that would not be effective.
David Johnston
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>David Johnston wrote
>> Demon Buddha <Nob...@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.
>
>> It's a synonym for "obvious", and obvious is such a useful word, isn't it?
>
>Yep.
>
>> It means "I'm not going to support this claim but I expect you to accept it anyway."
>
>You're lying now.
No, I'm not. Take you for example. You rely heavily on calling
things obvious, and if someone should dare question the "obvious",
then you insult them and call them blind. It's very convenient for
you to not have to support your assertions.
David Johnston
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Michael Coburn wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> David Johnston wrote
>>>> Demon Buddha <Nob...@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.
Which is one of those things which, being actually obvious, doesn't
need to be defended because nobody attacks the proposition.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> David Johnston wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@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.
>> Thats because you have wanked yourself completely blind.
>>> Bandits and warlords are not noted for their endurance.
>> Neither are govts in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, stupid.
> And those governments are not called "stable" governments for just that reason.
Pity about where banditry and warlords have endured, that aint called stable government, fool.
> Try again.
Go and fuck yourself, again.
Rod Speed
>>> With laws.
You're lying, as always.
Those jews LOST THEIR RIGHTS with those laws, fool.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> David Johnston wrote
>>> Demon Buddha <Nob...@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.
>>> It's a synonym for "obvious", and obvious is such a useful word, isn't it?
>> Yep.
>>> It means "I'm not going to support this claim but I expect you to accept it anyway."
>> You're lying now.
> No, I'm not.
Yes you are.
> Take you for example. You rely heavily on calling things obvious,
You're lying, as always.
> and if someone should dare question the "obvious",
> then you insult them and call them blind.
You're lying, as always.
> It's very convenient for you to not have to support your assertions.
You're lying, as always. I always support my assertions, fuckwit.
Rod Speed
>>>> Yep.
Irrelevant to whether some things are indeed obvious.
*Anarcissie*
So _you_ say. But there may be a god hiding under your
bed at this very moment. When did you last look?
> > If religious experience is fundamental and primary,
>
> It isnt in little kids of that age.
>
> > then it will precede abstractions about it.
>
> Nope. Kids need a metal capacity to grasp
> religious concepts for that to happen.
>
> In practice they are just afraid of the dark and can have very
> vivid imaginations and suck their thumbs and need night lights
> etc and their parents comforting etc instead of 'gods'
>
> >>> In any case, I don't see how this innate sense
> >>> of justice you say you observe speaks to the
> >>> problem of whether the metaphysical notion of
> >>> equality has some kind of independent existence,
> >> More fool you. There is no other way it can show up in
> >> almost all little kids that early, when it cant be trained into
> >> them consciously or unconsiously by their parents etc.
> > Genetically. No gods or metaphysics required.
> What I said below in different words. And not what you
> said below, the exact opposite of what you said below.
Wrong.
I don't see how some genetic tendency turns into a thing
which other people are said to possess.
Michael Gordge
> You're always free to fuck off to Somalia any time you decide they do it better there.
That is without doubt the most disgusting, cowardly and evasive action
to which all left and right wing knuckle-dragging wankers resort, ewe
fucking immoral anti-human repugnant cockheads refuse to rationally
justify your positions, so ewes resort instead to telling a human
being that the meaning of life is avoiding death.
Go fuck yourself ewe utterly confused right wing / leftist immoral
cockhead.
MG
Clave
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:16:54 -0800, "Clave"
> <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
>>"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
>>news:g515f51jph0lp4shu...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:19:25 -0500, Demon Buddha <Nob...@no.where>
>>> wrote:
<...>
>>>>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.
>
> Yeah he did. Saying that something is a self-evident truth is a
> universal claim.
No, he prefaced that with "*WE* HOLD...", which pretty much means that they
expect George, et al, to hold otherwise.
Don't let that stop you from hanging onto a comfortable myth, though.
Jim
Michael Gordge
> You're lying, as always. I always support my assertions, fuckwit.
You fucking disgusting confused right wing leftist piece of lying
crap, if ewe always supported your assertions then ewe would never had
told me that the meaning of human life is avoiding death.
MG
Rod Speed
>>>>>>>>> I smell gods.
>>>> Nope.
>>>> Yes.
>>>> Wrong.
>>> Why not?
Nope, the dog would have noticed.
> When did you last look?
Dont need to, the dog does that for me.
>>> If religious experience is fundamental and primary,
>> It isnt in little kids of that age.
>>> then it will precede abstractions about it.
>> Nope. Kids need a metal capacity to grasp
>> religious concepts for that to happen.
>> In practice they are just afraid of the dark and can have very
>> vivid imaginations and suck their thumbs and need night lights
>> etc and their parents comforting etc instead of 'gods'
>>>>> In any case, I don't see how this innate sense
>>>>> of justice you say you observe speaks to the
>>>>> problem of whether the metaphysical notion of
>>>>> equality has some kind of independent existence,
>>>> More fool you. There is no other way it can show up in
>>>> almost all little kids that early, when it cant be trained into
>>>> them consciously or unconsiously by their parents etc.
>>> Genetically. No gods or metaphysics required.
>> What I said below in different words. And not what you
>> said below, the exact opposite of what you said below.
> Wrong.
Everyone can see for themselves that its right.
>>>> Yes.
>>>> Corse they can.
>>> Can you explain that?
>>>>>>>> Your problem.
Your problem.
Michael Gordge
> No they didnt. If that was true, there wouldnt have been any need for any amendments.
The amendments were never meant to be in contradiction / violation of
the over-all intent of the constitution, which they have been.
MG
Michael Gordge
Where did they get them from? Are you trying very hard to be obtuse or
do you just want to avoid?
MG
*Anarcissie*
How do you know the dog hasn't been subverted? You
know, gods, they might do anything.
> >>> If religious experience is fundamental and primary,
> >> It isnt in little kids of that age.
> >>> then it will precede abstractions about it.
> >> Nope. Kids need a metal capacity to grasp
> >> religious concepts for that to happen.
> >> In practice they are just afraid of the dark and can have very
> >> vivid imaginations and suck their thumbs and need night lights
> >> etc and their parents comforting etc instead of 'gods'
> >>>>> In any case, I don't see how this innate sense
> >>>>> of justice you say you observe speaks to the
> >>>>> problem of whether the metaphysical notion of
> >>>>> equality has some kind of independent existence,
> >>>> More fool you. There is no other way it can show up in
> >>>> almost all little kids that early, when it cant be trained into
> >>>> them consciously or unconsiously by their parents etc.
> >>> Genetically. No gods or metaphysics required.
> >> What I said below in different words. And not what you
> >> said below, the exact opposite of what you said below.
> > Wrong.
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that its right.
Wrong.
It's _your_ problem. You're the one making assertions
about the strong ideas of little children constituting
"rights".
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Michael Gordge wrote
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote
>>>> Where are they derived from, if it's NOT from the constitution.....
>>> So are you suggesting that the wording of the constitution was just plucked from thin air?
>>> I am suggesting that those who wrote or who took part in the writing
>>> of the US constitution had spent decades studying what it was about
>>> man, the human individual, that made him so unique and they had
>>> worked out what it was that was needed for man, the human
>>> individual, to live as his, the individual's, nature demands, to live
>>> by using his own life as the standard of all his moral values.
>>> And apart from the odd hiccup, e.g. black slaves (notwithstanding
>>> of course that there would not be a black American today who
>>> would regret the fact their ancestor was chosen to be a slave)
>>> apart from that, the writers of the US Constitution got it 100% right
>> No they didnt. If that was true, there wouldnt have been any need for any amendments.
> The amendments were never meant to be in contradiction / violation of the over-all intent of the constitution,
The writes clearly didnt get it 100% right, stupid.
> which they have been.
If you believe that, feel free to set fire to yourself on the Jefferson Memorial or sumfin.
Rod Speed
>>>>>>>>>>> I smell gods.
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>> Why not?
I know because I know that he's unsubvertable.
> You know, gods, they might do anything.
Everytime I have checked whether the dog has got it right, he has.
The only time he got it wrong, I was carrying a big empty box
close to dark, to the big patio glass door that is my front door,
that he always lay in front of watching everthing that happened
in the park thats just outside that big patio door. Hilarious how
embarrassed he was when he worked out that he had fucked up.
>>>>> If religious experience is fundamental and primary,
>>>> It isnt in little kids of that age.
>>>>> then it will precede abstractions about it.
>>>> Nope. Kids need a metal capacity to grasp
>>>> religious concepts for that to happen.
>>>> In practice they are just afraid of the dark and can have very
>>>> vivid imaginations and suck their thumbs and need night lights
>>>> etc and their parents comforting etc instead of 'gods'
>>>>>>> In any case, I don't see how this innate sense
>>>>>>> of justice you say you observe speaks to the
>>>>>>> problem of whether the metaphysical notion of
>>>>>>> equality has some kind of independent existence,
>>>>>> More fool you. There is no other way it can show up in
>>>>>> almost all little kids that early, when it cant be trained into
>>>>>> them consciously or unconsiously by their parents etc.
>>>>> Genetically. No gods or metaphysics required.
>>>> What I said below in different words. And not what you
>>>> said below, the exact opposite of what you said below.
>>> Wrong.
>> Everyone can see for themselves that its right.
> Wrong.
You never ever could bullshits your way out of a wet paper bag.
Cant even manage your own lines, or anything else at all either.
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>> Corse they can.
>>>>> Can you explain that?
>>>>>>>>>> Your problem.
>> Your problem.
> It's _your_ problem.
Nope, your terminal stupidity is no problem for me.
> You're the one making assertions about the strong ideas of little children constituting "rights".
Wrong again. I'm the one rubbing your stupid nose in that fact.
Michael Gordge
> > which they have been.
>
> If you believe that............
pathetic, is that all ewe have?
MG
*Anarcissie*
> Anarcissie:
> ...
> >>> So _you_ say. But there may be a god hiding under your bed at this very moment.
> >> Nope, the dog would have noticed.
> >>> When did you last look?
> >> Dont need to, the dog does that for me.
> > How do you know the dog hasn't been subverted?
>
> I know because I know that he's unsubvertable.
>
> > You know, gods, they might do anything.
>
> Everytime I have checked whether the dog has got it right, he has.
See the physicist's proof:
http://everything2.com/title/Proof+that+all+odd+numbers+are+prime
Rod Speed
>>>>> So _you_ say. But there may be a god hiding under your bed at this very moment.
>>>> Nope, the dog would have noticed.
>>>>> When did you last look?
>>>> Dont need to, the dog does that for me.
>>> How do you know the dog hasn't been subverted?
>> I know because I know that he's unsubvertable.
>>> You know, gods, they might do anything.
>> Everytime I have checked whether the dog has got it right, he has.
> See the physicist's proof:
> http://everything2.com/title/Proof+that+all+odd+numbers+are+prime
Completely useless, as always.