|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: question for the socialists... [Re: ]
#2371348 - 02/23/04 09:57 AM (20 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
i believe that for a socialist to have any logical consistancy, he must reject individual rights.
Come again? The whole essence of socialism is individual rights.
it leaves us where there is no justice. you can no longer refer to "your" life... it isn't even yours. it belongs to whomever is stronger than you and wishes to have it. there is no right and no wrong. might makes right.
Oddly enough this is a perfect description of neocon capitalism.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: question for the socialists... [Re: Xlea321]
#2371366 - 02/23/04 10:07 AM (20 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Come again? The whole essence of socialism is individual rights. not according to gazzbut, who i'm afraid is much closer to the mark. what rights are the essence of socialism? where do they come from? Oddly enough this is a perfect description of neocon capitalism. i'm not talking about "neocon capitalism". i'm talking about Capitalism capitalism. please explain how liberal (classical liberal that is) capitalism is not founded on self-ownership and the resulting rights to life, liberty, and property, and how socialism is. i would be interested to see a socialist put forth a different theory of inalienable rights, and build a foundation from which they are derived, but i have a feeling that isn't going to happen.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: question for the socialists... [Re: ]
#2371379 - 02/23/04 10:14 AM (20 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
not according to gazzbut Where has Gazz said no-one has any individual rights under socialism? capitalism is not founded on self-ownership What do you mean by "self-ownership"? And what "self-ownership" does a 14 year old girl working in the capitalist paradise in south east asia (free of any pesky "marxist-leninist" government inteference) have?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: question for the socialists... [Re: Xlea321]
#2371389 - 02/23/04 10:19 AM (20 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Where has Gazz said no-one has any rights under socialism?
gazzbut has said that people have no inalienable rights more than once in this thread.
What do you mean by "self-ownership"? And what "self-ownership" does a 14 year old girl working in the capitalist paradise in south east asia (free of any pesky "marxist-leninist" government inteference) have?
there you go talking about children again. as i've said before (and i real i will undoubtedly have to say again), children are a different situation calling for different measures. they do not have the same self-ownership and rights as adults. they, unlike adults, should be protected from their own bad decisions. adults should not be.
how about an 18 year old working in such a factory? how has her self-ownership been violated?
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: question for the socialists... [Re: Xlea321]
#2371394 - 02/23/04 10:20 AM (20 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Come on Alex, tells us from where your concept of rights derives. Try not to derail another thread with your mythical 14 year old girls.
-------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: question for the socialists... [Re: Evolving]
#2371405 - 02/23/04 10:23 AM (20 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
What "concept of rights" are you talking about? I don't need a "concept of rights" to tell me it's wrong to poison people. Do you? It just comes natural to a human being. They arn't mythical mush. They're suffering right now in thousands of factories throughout the world thanks to your neocon brethren.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: question for the socialists... [Re: Evolving]
#2371409 - 02/23/04 10:24 AM (20 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
seriously. i thought this thread was actually going somewhere for a minute. gazzbut's honest contribution was like a breath of fresh air.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: question for the socialists... [Re: ]
#2371423 - 02/23/04 10:28 AM (20 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
I'd given up on it a while ago to be honest. I thought you might've changed tack with Gazz's contribution but no such luck.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: question for the socialists... [Re: Xlea321]
#2371426 - 02/23/04 10:29 AM (20 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said: What "concept of rights" are you talking about?
If a person has a 'right' to free medical care, how do you define 'right'? If a person has a 'right' to live off of the labor of another, how do you determine that it is a right? What is your definiton of a right? Are these things just made up on a whim?
-------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
|
Re: question for the socialists... [Re: ]
#2371474 - 02/23/04 10:46 AM (20 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
how do you, as an individual, know what is good policy and what is not? how would you personally know how to cast your vote?
The way I see an open democracy functioning you would still need to select a political party, preferably from a larger group than two, every four years or so to take care of administration etc. However, the public would then get to vote on the decisions they take. Parties in opposition would be able to present their side of the argument when they disagreed with the ruling party thus allowing people to make an informed position. This is obviously a very basic representation of how an open demcoracy could function.
Quote:
what is "blatantly unfair"? if people have no rights, how can anything be unfair?
Mush you really are missing the point! I am saying that people have no inalienable rights. The only "rights" a person has are those bestowed upon them by the society they live in. As I mentioned earlier I see these as rules of play rather than rights. So just because I dont beleive people have any inalienable rights doesnt mean I think we should live in a world where might makes right.
Quote:
This is obviously false.
there are socialists who disagree with you, as we have seen by those here arguing that individuals have a right to be provided with things like education, healthcare, and brotherly kindness.
There are no inalienable rights which man posseses other than those that are conjured from the minds of other men. And as they are only conjured from the minds of men they are certainly in no way inalienable. btw, You do realise Im not a socialist dont you?!
Quote:
if we reject self-ownership, and we reject individual rights, where does that leave us in matters of law and justice?
Im not saying we reject anything. Im just saying that there are no inalienable rights of man, from which we must start, when developing the rules of play concerning law and justice.
Quote:
it leaves us where there is no justice. you can no longer refer to "your" life... it isn't even yours. it belongs to whomever is stronger than you and wishes to have it. there is no right and no wrong. might makes right.
This is not the logical conclusion of what I have been saying all along.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: question for the socialists... [Re: Xlea321]
#2371891 - 02/23/04 12:32 PM (20 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
I don't need a "concept of rights" to tell me it's wrong to poison people. Do you? It just comes natural to a human being. of course it's wrong to poison people. the reason is because it violates their rights. it is wrong to expose someone to a risk if they do not have free choice about whether or not to be exposed to the said risk. if a person has a free choice to persue a certain course of action made possible by another person (meaning that among other things, they must be properly aware of the risks involved), then their rights cannot be said to have been violated, no matter what decision they make. we've covered this already. all employment involves some risk. no place of business is entirely safe. those seeking employment must be free to make their own decisions, based on their own values, about how much risk they are willing to expose themselves to on the job. one reason i wouldn't do roofing for a living is because it's risky. i had to take an ambulance ride one summer just doing some volunteer work on some roofs. according to my own values, the risks incurred by being a roofer are not worth the benefits. does this mean that i have any place telling other people that they may not take such risks? of course not. They're suffering right now in thousands of factories throughout the world thanks to your neocon brethren. my neocon brethren? excuse me alex, but i do not support child labor, and i certainly wouldn't call those that do my "brethren". read carefully: i do not support child labor. child labor is not a feature of a true free market system.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: question for the socialists... [Re: GazzBut]
#2371933 - 02/23/04 12:40 PM (20 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
The way I see an open democracy functioning you would still need to select a political party, preferably from a larger group than two, every four years or so to take care of administration etc. However, the public would then get to vote on the decisions they take. Parties in opposition would be able to present their side of the argument when they disagreed with the ruling party thus allowing people to make an informed position. This is obviously a very basic representation of how an open demcoracy could function.
would there be limits to the power of the majority, or would it be unrestrained democracy?
and that doesn't answer the question. i'm asking how you, gazzbut, the individual, would know what you thought was right and wrong in the world of public policy.
The only "rights" a person has are those bestowed upon them by the society they live in.
So just because I dont beleive people have any inalienable rights doesnt mean I think we should live in a world where might makes right.
that's exactly what it means. if a person has no other rights than those granted to them by the powers that be, might does make right.
There are no inalienable rights which man posseses other than those that are conjured from the minds of other men. And as they are only conjured from the minds of men they are certainly in no way inalienable.
your self-ownership is not something conjured from the minds of other men. whether they exist or not, you still have it.
Im just saying that there are no inalienable rights of man, from which we must start, when developing the rules of play concerning law and justice.
where do we start then?
This is not the logical conclusion of what I have been saying all along.
do you believe in the concept of self-ownership?
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: question for the socialists... [Re: ]
#2372194 - 02/23/04 01:42 PM (20 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
The underlying premise of Socialism is that individuals don't have inherent rights, but groups do.
The underlying premise of Capitalism is that individuals do have inherent rights, and that individuals neither gain nor lose any of these rights by joining a group.
GazzBut claims that individuals have no inherent rights. His opinions over his years of posting here seem to indicate he believes that groups do (see his many comments on majority rule). Therefore, I cannot fault you for assuming (appraently incorrectly) he is a Socialist. I had assumed the same. He certainly isn't a Capitalist or an Individualist or a Libertarian.
pinky
--------------------
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
|
Re: question for the socialists... [Re: Phred]
#2372560 - 02/23/04 03:04 PM (20 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The underlying premise of Socialism is that individuals don't have inherent rights, but groups do.
As defined by the Pinky school of Political science I presume?!
Quote:
GazzBut claims that individuals have no inherent rights. His opinions over his years of posting here seem to indicate he believes that groups do
What is so hard to understand? No individual or group of people have any rights other than those bestowed upon them by others.
Quote:
He certainly isn't a Capitalist or an Individualist or a Libertarian.
Im post political.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
|
Re: question for the socialists... [Re: ]
#2372614 - 02/23/04 03:22 PM (20 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
would there be limits to the power of the majority, or would it be unrestrained democracy?
As I mentioned, you would still vote for parties to represent you so the majority would not have unlimited power i.e they cant propose a motion to bring back slavery and put that to the vote.
Quote:
i'm asking how you, gazzbut, the individual, would know what you thought was right and wrong in the world of public policy.
The same way I do now. The same way that you seem to know what the best economic policy would be. However an open democracy would need to be extremely transparent and much more information of a high quality would need to be made available to the people to aid in the decision process. Basically moving from a bystander democracy to a participatory democracy.
Quote:
that's exactly what it means. if a person has no other rights than those granted to them by the powers that be, might does make right.
So tell me mush what rights you have, other than those bestowed upon you by society, which actually have any meaning?
Quote:
your self-ownership is not something conjured from the minds of other men. whether they exist or not, you still have it.
I dont really like the metaphor of self-ownership. It doesnt really mean anything to me and therefore doesnt exist for me. It may exist for you and thats fine, you are free to conjure anything you want with your mind but dont delude yourself that this collection of words has any objective meaning.
Quote:
where do we start then?
Id have thought my answer was obvious! If we were to start again, to decide anew the rules of play which determine our judicial system we would have to consult society.
Quote:
do you believe in the concept of self-ownership?
Its a bit of an empty concept for me to be honest. I dont see my existance as being something owned by me. When I think of ownership I think of an object that I own, my computer, my guitar etc..I dont count myself as one of my possesions.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: question for the anyone... [Re: GazzBut]
#2372827 - 02/23/04 04:23 PM (20 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
As I mentioned, you would still vote for parties to represent you so the majority would not have unlimited power i.e they cant propose a motion to bring back slavery and put that to the vote. voting for parties to represent you doesn't guarantee anything. you can do that now. The same way I do now. which is? So tell me mush what rights you have, other than those bestowed upon you by society, which actually have any meaning? huh? society bestowes upon you no rights. you start out with rights, and in your interactions with others, they are either violated or they are not. I dont really like the metaphor of self-ownership. It doesnt really mean anything to me and therefore doesnt exist for me. if we exist and act in the same limited sphere of existance (and unless we are totally isolated, we do), there will be times in which one person's capacity to act will infringe upon another person's capacity to act. this is an inevitability. the question becomes: when is this legitimate? when does your capacity to act override mine, and when does my capacity to act override yours? this is really the question of ownership. you and i cannot both wear the same pair of shoes. we cannot eat the same food, etc. if i want to wear the pair of shoes you're wearing, and you also want to wear them, one of us will have their freedom to act curtailed. likewise, if you want to kill me, and i want to live, it is the same. so... who owns what? i would say that a person comes into this world with an ownership of their own self. no one else has a higher claim on their own self than they do. if you want to kill me, and i want to live, my freedom to act overrides yours, because we are talking about what is mine... my life. if i want to enslave you, and you wish to be free, your freedom overrides mine; i cannot enslave you, because you own your self, not me. if i wish to wear the pair of shoes you've made, i cannot, because they are rightfully yours. ownership is not something that can be simply denied. we cannot both eat the same apple, and there is really no getting around that. people own things, and the question is: from what foundation can they own things? what does a person legitimately own? if you own your life, you own your freedom to act, and you own the results of your freedom to act. if you do not own your life, what do you own? you own nothing. you are subordinate to whomever is stronger than you. might makes right. Id have thought my answer was obvious! If we were to start again, to decide anew the rules of play which determine our judicial system we would have to consult society. and how would you decide what the rules should be? would it be nothing more than a vote? why should a person be able to do something to another person which they weren't otherwise legitimately permitted to do simply because their opposition is outnumbered? sounds again like might makes right. Its a bit of an empty concept for me to be honest. I dont see my existance as being something owned by me. When I think of ownership I think of an object that I own, my computer, my guitar etc..I dont count myself as one of my possesions. if you don't own your self, how have you been violated if you are murdered, assaulted, or enslaved? if you don't have a right to your life, have you been violated if someone does this to you? or are you only violated if a majority (of other people) agrees that it's a violation under the "rules by which we should play"?
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
|
Re: question for the anyone... [Re: ]
#2374644 - 02/24/04 02:36 AM (20 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
voting for parties to represent you doesn't guarantee anything. you can do that now.
This is like pulling teeth. Yes of course voting for parties doesnt guarantee anything but in a system of open democracy...oh i cant even be bothered to finish the sentence, if you are that slow then there isnt much point.
Quote:
huh? society bestowes upon you no rights. you start out with rights, and in your interactions with others, they are either violated or they are not.
What inalienable rights do we start out with then mush? Society bestows upon me the right to be able to drink alcohol etc. It bestows upon me the right to free medical care. It bestows upon me the right to free speech without risk of imprisonment etc. How can you say society doesnt afford me any rights?
Quote:
so... who owns what? i would say that a person comes into this world with an ownership of their own self.
this is mine..this defines me...this makes me what I am...this reassures me. Ownership is also just a concept. I know it sounds like im being awkward for the sake of it but Im not willing to concede that there is any such thing as natural rights which exist independent of human thought. If there are, why dont they apply to other species of animal?
Quote:
if you do not own your life, what do you own? you own nothing. you are subordinate to whomever is stronger than you. might makes right.
I dont consider that I "own" my life. I posess certain things for varying amounts of time and I try not to be too attached to any of them. Now why am I subordinate to whomever is stronger than me? And if I did believe I owned my life how would that prevent someone from making me their subordinate through might or violence? It wouldnt because it is merely a concept.
Quote:
and how would you decide what the rules should be? would it be nothing more than a vote? why should a person be able to do something to another person which they weren't otherwise legitimately permitted to do simply because their opposition is outnumbered? sounds again like might makes right.
I would decide based upon the set of rules by which I play. It would be many votes and there would be much debate. Why is that anymore "might makes right" than our current system?????
Quote:
if you don't own your self, how have you been violated if you are murdered, assaulted, or enslaved?
I conceptualise myself as an individual who is a small part of a larger whole. If I am murdered, assaulted or enslaved what difference does it make if I believe in the concept of self ownership as defined by you?
Anyway mush lets move this along. For the sake of argument lets accept that your ideas of self ownership actually do possess some objective meaning...so what? What are you getting at?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: question for the socialists... [Re: GazzBut]
#2374712 - 02/24/04 03:15 AM (20 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
GazzBut writes:
As defined by the Pinky school of Political science I presume?!
As defined by Socialist doctrine. For example, Socialism holds that individuals are not allowed to own means of production. Groups are. Therefore, groups have rights, individuals don't.
Your own pronouncements back me on this. You say that rights are "bestowed" upon individuals by the group -- "No individual or group of people have any rights other than those bestowed upon them by others."
It intrigues me how you have missed the circularity of your argument. If no individual or group of individuals have rights other than those bestowed upon them by others, then just who are these "others"? The others can't be individual humans and they can't be groups of humans -- since according to you neither have rights of their own. So how can they possibly have rights they can bestow upon anyone? Are these "others" supernatural beings?
The only explanation I can find for your self-contradiction is that you are confusing the recognition of rights with the granting of rights -- a common error.
pinky
--------------------
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
|
Re: question for the socialists... [Re: Phred]
#2374723 - 02/24/04 03:23 AM (20 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
I didnt think you would have this much of a problem grasping what I am saying!
Mush believes that humans have inalienable rights. All I am saying is that the only rights we have are those granted by others. We do not have any rights that arise purely through being human. Its not that hard is it?
Do you believe we posess inalienable rights? If so what are they?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 months, 14 days
|
Re: question for the socialists... [Re: GazzBut]
#2374725 - 02/24/04 03:25 AM (20 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
btw, there is no circularity in my agrgument. People decide they are going to bestow rights upon others and if people choose to accept this then there is no need for anyone to bestow rights upon the people who are granting these rights.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
|