|
Anonymous
|
 other boards? 
#2698521 - 05/18/04 08:13 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
i feel like when i post here, i'm just parroting the same libertarian critiques of the same lame collectivist arguments over and over again. it's getting dull. worse yet, sometimes when i make an argument which i actually know myself to be incomplete or flawed (i do that sometimes), it often goes unquestioned.
i've felt like this for some time.
i'm just a 20 year old guy who's read a couple books on philosophy and politics. i'm far more aware of my own ignorance than i let on when i post here.
my dilemma is this: no offense to those here (there are many great minds) but perhaps the fires of this board aren't hot enough to test my views and arguments. i don't feel like they are. it feels like it's been some time since someone here really made me think.
can anyone suggest another political discussion board that includes and tolerates different views (and is preferably visited by more well-read thinkers than late-adolescent mushroom growers)?
thanks for the suggestions and thanks for entertaining this brief rambling of mine...
(ps. i really don't mean to offend anyone here. i'm sure a lot of people here feel like this sometimes. there are some great minds here)
|
 Tao
Village Genius
Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: ]
#2698593 - 05/18/04 08:31 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I get frustrated often as well by receiving these condensed parroted libertarian quotes. I think part of the problem is the medium we communicate. Often is laborious to quote and respond to each point and then type it all out instead of just saying it which woudl be so much quicker--to the point where often i'll just let something die because it would take to much time and i have more important things to do (imagine that, more important things to do than debate on the internet). I would suggest going to a debating club or perhaps a political club that participates in debates at your university. People there might be brighter/better read opposition (but might not). my friend who does things like that is a 1600 SAT guy, won a national geography contest (worth 25,000) when he was younger, and reads biographies of political figures and other political books for fun during class . And it would solve the problem of the medium as well. I like this website because it doesn't have an official political slant (other than anti-drug prohibition), though for whatever reason, the conservative side (you, evolving, pinky, lds and i guess ss7) post a lot more than the liberal side. And the two I find to be the most well-read (evolving and pinky) are on that side as well.
If the club thing doesnt suit you, maybe you should try having some discussions with a professor outside of class during office hours (or maybe after the end of the course if youre paranoid about your grade). im assuming youve taken some politics classes?
but again, i think on this medium, the internet, we often resort to quips, parroting and condensed arguments, which is an unfortunate trade-off for the benefits of its wide reach in audience.
|
GernBlanston
unintended sideeffect
Registered: 05/28/03
Posts: 842
Loc: OR
Last seen: 2 years, 6 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Tao]
#2699414 - 05/18/04 11:57 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
That is, indeed, the crux of the biscuit.
I often find that I'd respond to arguments/discussions on this board if I didn't have to type it  I even type at over 100 wpm, and I still just don't feel like taking the effort at times.
I do get frustrated with things on the board (this one, and some of the others to which I post - democraticunderground.com, for one) at times, as well. People tend to do something online that I find distracting, and although it's something that I find some people doing IRL, it's much less common. On the boards, people have a much greater tendency to write what they want about a subject and then check to see how people respond to what they wrote, often only continuing the "conversation" if someone replies directly to them.
Unfortunately, this is not really communicating. Additionally, it tends to bring out the "look at me!" in many of us... people might be more vehement than they normally would; or they might resort to sensationalism or even personal or ad hominem attacks against others to this end. It can get a little disheartening.
But the reason that I keep coming back to the shroomery boards is to see what people think. I already know what hardcore Democrats and other progressives think because of all the other sites that I visit; what's nice about this board is that I don't really understand where some people who might not always see eye to eye with me are coming from, and I can educate myself here - not only to the opinions and viewpoints of reasonably intelligent people who hold views opposite to my own (read: Luvdem, Mushmaster, et. al. and not Hannity and Coulter et. al.), but also to educate myself further in the psychological inner workings of politics and more generally, belief systems. See, those of us who partake in ethnogens tend to be a little more open and honest with ourselves, and that lends a very different air to the discussions that go on around here. It's refreshing, if not sometimes maddening.
Anyway, I'm becoming a bit rambli-shous, so I'll shaddup.
If you get annoyed, just take some time away from the Shroomery boards and check back in a few weeks. I do that from time to time and it keeps my perspective a little fresher.
Gern
--------------------
There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.
-- Howard Zinn
|
 Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,213
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 3 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: other boards? [Re: ]
#2699425 - 05/19/04 12:02 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
--------------------------------
Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: other boards? [Re: ]
#2699859 - 05/19/04 03:03 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
i'm just parroting the same libertarian critiques of the same lame collectivist arguments
Heres your problem. You are not actually thinking.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2699864 - 05/19/04 03:04 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
But I do know what you mean!! 
Ive been thinking the same sort of things myself.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
 silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2700319 - 05/19/04 08:40 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Quote:
i'm just parroting the same libertarian critiques of the same lame collectivist arguments
Heres your problem. You are not actually thinking.
No, the problem is that nobody here has been able to refute these arguments, and thus has not challenged his mind sufficiently.
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
gimme a break! What, the arguements that only exist in a fantasy world? How can you refute a fantasy world?...give me some REAL WORLD examples where these ideas have worked.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2700377 - 05/19/04 08:56 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
gimme a break! What, the arguements that only exist in a fantasy world?
They're arguments based on logic, something severely lacking in many members of this forum.
Quote:
How can you refute a fantasy world?...give me some REAL WORLD examples where these ideas have worked.
America during the time of the founding fathers would be a good example.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
They're arguments based on logic
To be honest some of the members who expound these ideas actually have a very poor grasp of logic. They are quite good at saying this is logic but when you actually look closely at some of the premises there is actually a distinct lack of true logic.
Quote:
America during the time of the founding fathers would be a good example.
Not a particularly good example as the world has changed beyond all recognition since those times.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2700426 - 05/19/04 09:11 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Quote:
They're arguments based on logic
To be honest some of the members who expound these ideas actually have a very poor grasp of logic. They are quite good at saying this is logic but when you actually look closely at some of the premises there is actually a distinct lack of true logic.
If this were true, then why can't any of you liberals refute their logical flaws?
Quote:
Quote:
America during the time of the founding fathers would be a good example.
Not a particularly good example as the world has changed beyond all recognition since those times.
Not as much as you think.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
If this were true, then why can't any of you liberals refute their logical flaws?
As far as im concerned I have done time and time again! Actually, i agree with alot of what mush has to say but I just think that philosophy is a little bit selfish and really doesnt cater for caring for those in society who actually need help. And anyway stop throwing your silly little labels around I prefer to keep my options open. I am only a liberal in other peoples eyes.
Quote:
Not as much as you think.
Err..yeah. We have just seen more advances and changes than in the rest of human history put together, we are in the midst of a revolution in conciousness but nothing much has really changed?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2700462 - 05/19/04 09:22 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
As far as im concerned I have done time and time again!
I would refute this, except that I could see this turning into the Monty Python "argument" sketch.
Quote:
Err..yeah. We have just seen more advances and changes than in the rest of human history put together, we are in the midst of a revolution in conciousness but nothing much has really changed?
Technology does not change human nature.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
vampirism
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
|
|
how do you know this
are there NO limits?
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
You seem awful sure about that! So you think that human nature is 100% hardwired into the brain and can never be changed?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2700473 - 05/19/04 09:27 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
You seem awful sure about that! So you think that human nature is 100% hardwired into the brain and can never be changed?
Perhaps it could evolve. However, I see no changes in the world which would indicate a change in human nature. If you could point me to any, I'd love to see if you could prove me wrong.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: vampirism]
#2700476 - 05/19/04 09:28 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Morrowind said:
how do you know this
are there NO limits?
Ok, so perhaps technology COULD change human nature, but from what I've seen, it has yet to do so.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
vampirism
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
|
|
you have not lived in different time periods 
looking at undeveloped countries is not relevant - they are not as they were, though they seem the same. Example: The !Kung in the Kalahari desert are foragers and claim to always have been foragers - yet they will go out and raise cattle for others WITH THEIR OWN skills
they acquired this recently to make money
it's sort of like quantum physics, in that a developed country, in exploring undeveloped ones, develops the undeveloped country in some way
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: other boards? [Re: ]
#2700502 - 05/19/04 09:41 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I thought you'd retired months ago mush, what made you come back?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: vampirism]
#2700510 - 05/19/04 09:44 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Morrowind said:
you have not lived in different time periods
Are you saying I had to actually be present in order to look at history? There are historical records, you know.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
vampirism
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
|
|
there are two kinds: current historical interpretations, and surviving documents
the documents make little sense at face value, and can be skewed either way
the interpretations have alternatives
experiencing it at the time may not be as "accurate" as historical records, but it would give a better sense of whats going on - perspective
it's just that when we're probing for human nature and its endpoints, if it has any, things become very unclear because everything becomes circumstancial . Oh well. no use arguing about this i suppose
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: other boards? [Re: vampirism]
#2700571 - 05/19/04 10:01 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
surviving documents
Usually depends to a massive degree on who wrote the documents too. I'm sure if we read a "libertarian" history of sweatshops we would be assured that no-one was ever ill-treated and every worker was perfectly happy to see their children working for 100 hour weeks to earn less than the minimum wage.
Of course, someone who actually worked in a sweatshop may tell history in a very different way..
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Tao
Village Genius
Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
|
Yeesh, this is the problem, can't you understand, NO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY CAN BE PURE LOGIC. just like moral philosophy, you either fall prey to the naturalistic fallacy or else you must start the philosophy with an 'If' clause that people won't necessarily accept such as "If you want as much freedom for people as possible then..." or "If you want as much economic efficiency as possible then...". if its something like "If you want a fair political system then..." then youre making a moral claim which will never be derived from a logical empirical claim without making the naturalistic fallacy.
and as for 'human nature never changing'  that argument goes both ways. For absolute socialism/communism, it will never work because human nature is too lazy. For capitalism, since it actually depends upon encouraging selfishnes, this selfishness of human nature will never change in order to look out for the less fortunate (something societies have done since hunting and gathering times). You cannot logically argue against (or for) a value judgement such as 'the loss of the economic freedom for some is worth the gain in equality and helping the truly less fortunate' (note right now, i think most would agree that welfare policies need retooling in order to help the truly less fortunate while trying to avoid creating a culture of dependency). Equality is a value for some in political philosophy, even if it isn't really for libertarians.
Please, show me your 'pure logic' political philosophy and I'll be glad to show why it is not.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Tao]
#2701026 - 05/19/04 11:36 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TaoTeChing said:
Yeesh, this is the problem, can't you understand, NO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY CAN BE PURE LOGIC. just like moral philosophy, you either fall prey to the naturalistic fallacy or else you must start the philosophy with an 'If' clause that people won't necessarily accept such as "If you want as much freedom for people as possible then..." or "If you want as much economic efficiency as possible then...".
Obviously there are those who do not value freedom or economic efficiency. If they so choose, they can go to Cuba or some other communist or socialist country.
Quote:
if its something like "If you want a fair political system then..." then youre making a moral claim which will never be derived from a logical empirical claim without making the naturalistic fallacy.
Of course. However, I don't recall seeing anyone use that argument here.
Quote:
and as for 'human nature never changing' that argument goes both ways. For absolute socialism/communism, it will never work because human nature is too lazy.
No, it will never work because humans are naturally aggrandizers, and thus social stratification is inevitable.
Quote:
For capitalism, since it actually depends upon encouraging selfishnes
False. Allowing something is not the same as encouraging it.
Quote:
this selfishness of human nature will never change in order to look out for the less fortunate (something societies have done since hunting and gathering times).
If societies have looked after each other since hunting and gathering times, what makes you think that people will stop doing so if they are no longer legally required to?
Quote:
You cannot logically argue against (or for) a value judgement such as 'the loss of the economic freedom for some is worth the gain in equality and helping the truly less fortunate'
Perhaps, but you could argue against the effectiveness of such programs.
Quote:
Equality is a value for some in political philosophy, even if it isn't really for libertarians.
It is for libertarians as well. The difference is that while socialists and communists try to create actual economic equality for all(a pipe dream if you ask me), libertarians support equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law.
Quote:
Please, show me your 'pure logic' political philosophy and I'll be glad to show why it is not.
I have neither the time nor patience to write an entire libertarian manifesto, but you can go through any number of threads about it. Especially try and see if you can refute pinksharkmark's arguments. I tried for a long time, and my failure(as well as everyone else's) to do so is part of what eventually led to me becoming libertarian.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Obviously there are those who do not value freedom or economic efficiency. If they so choose, they can go to Cuba or some other communist or socialist country.
Why would they have to go to Cuba? Why couldn't they stay in America under George Bush?
I tried for a long time, and my failure(as well as everyone else's)
Your failure maybe, everyone else has debunked pinkie countless times on every subject from WMD in Iraq to his claim about "17,000 scientists who say global warming doesn't exist" etc etc. Read Echovortex if you want to see pinkies economic arguments demolished concisely.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Xlea321]
#2701317 - 05/19/04 12:46 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said:
Obviously there are those who do not value freedom or economic efficiency. If they so choose, they can go to Cuba or some other communist or socialist country.
Why would they have to go to Cuba? Why couldn't they stay in America under George Bush?
Point taken.
Quote:
I tried for a long time, and my failure(as well as everyone else's)
Your failure maybe, everyone else has debunked pinkie countless times on every subject from WMD in Iraq to his claim about "17,000 scientists who say global warming doesn't exist" etc etc. Read Echovortex if you want to see pinkies economic arguments demolished concisely.
I did not mean that pinky is right about everything, and I have seen Evolving successfully take him on in matters of foreign policy, but I have yet to see anyone, even Echovortex come close to debunking his arguments about the natural rights of man.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Tao
Village Genius
Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
Obviously there are those who do not value freedom or economic efficiency. If they so choose, they can go to Cuba or some other communist or socialist country.
its not as simplistic as 'not valueing freedom or economic efficiency' its about finding a balance between freedom and security (do people who think you shouldn't be allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater therefore not value freedom?). for many on the left, its about finding a blance between efficiency and equality/perceived fairness.
Quote:
For capitalism, since it actually depends upon encouraging selfishnes
False. Allowing something is not the same as encouraging it.
No, you are false, capitalism must enforce and protect patents and copyrights in order to encourage innovation by ensuring the innovator and not others receives the benefits of the innovation
Quote:
this selfishness of human nature will never change in order to look out for the less fortunate (something societies have done since hunting and gathering times).
If societies have looked after each other since hunting and gathering times, what makes you think that people will stop doing so if they are no longer legally required to?
because societies then consisted of 40 or so people. now they consist of millions. this leads to detachment apart from one's own immediate family. also, capialism has fostered a culture of selfishness and allowed for an individual to be extremely independent whereas in H&G societies reciprocity was key and societies were extremely tight knit groups.
Quote:
You cannot logically argue against (or for) a value judgement such as 'the loss of the economic freedom for some is worth the gain in equality and helping the truly less fortunate'
Perhaps, but you could argue against the effectiveness of such programs.
absolutely true. i think parts of canada system are insane. on the extreme affirmative action side there was a first nations person studying to be a doctor having already failed the year twice, and having first choice in housing, having education paid for, getting cushy work-study positions and of course is accepted into the university again--to train to be a doctor. she didnt seem to pay hardly any consequences for her irresponsibility so it continued. (oh yeah and of course first nations don't pay canada taxes ). then there was a single mom who said she would have less if she got a job due to govt welfare being dependant on income, so it was worth it to just stay at home unemployed and homeschool her kids. Welfare programs are not that old and i'll be the right there to say they often need fixing and adjusting. but then, what doesn't? I believe there is a balance to be found there eventually.
Quote:
Equality is a value for some in political philosophy, even if it isn't really for libertarians.
It is for libertarians as well. The difference is that while socialists and communists try to create actual economic equality for all(a pipe dream if you ask me), libertarians support equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law.
liberals want equal opportunity too, though they see injustice in such things as wealth inheritance, the genetic lottery and other ways that strict capitalism strays from an equal opportunity meritocracy and so that they believe that certain things should be slightly adjusted for.
Quote:
Please, show me your 'pure logic' political philosophy and I'll be glad to show why it is not.
I have neither the time nor patience to write an entire libertarian manifesto, but you can go through any number of threads about it. Especially try and see if you can refute pinksharkmark's arguments. I tried for a long time, and my failure(as well as everyone else's) to do so is part of what eventually led to me becoming libertarian.
 I knew after i said that that you would not give me a purely logical political philosophy statement. i have respect for evolving and pinky, but youre just a linking, quoting parrot. you go to a CA university and become liberal, then come to this website and are bombarded by conservatives and become conservative. 
Edited by TaoTeChing (05/19/04 02:20 PM)
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Tao]
#2701777 - 05/19/04 02:19 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TaoTeChing said:
Quote:
Obviously there are those who do not value freedom or economic efficiency. If they so choose, they can go to Cuba or some other communist or socialist country.
its not as simplistic as 'not valueing freedom or economic efficiency' its about finding a balance between freedom and security (do people who think you shouldn't be allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater therefore not value freedom?). for many on the left, its about finding a blance between efficiency and equality/perceived fairness.
Being a former leftist myself, I understand that. However, such an attitude seems to require a belief that the end justifies the means, which I cannot accept.
Quote:
Quote:
For capitalism, since it actually depends upon encouraging selfishnes
False. Allowing something is not the same as encouraging it.
No, you are false, capitalism must enforce and protect patents and copyrights in order to encourage innovation by ensuring the innovator and not others receives the benefits of the innovation
How is that selfish? It is merely respecting the rights of individuals. If a person chooses to give away their property, they are free to do so.
Quote:
Quote:
this selfishness of human nature will never change in order to look out for the less fortunate (something societies have done since hunting and gathering times).
If societies have looked after each other since hunting and gathering times, what makes you think that people will stop doing so if they are no longer legally required to?
because societies then consisted of 40 or so people. now they consist of millions. this leads to detachment apart from one's own immediate family.
Yet people continue to generously give to charity. Why is that?
Quote:
Quote:
You cannot logically argue against (or for) a value judgement such as 'the loss of the economic freedom for some is worth the gain in equality and helping the truly less fortunate'
Perhaps, but you could argue against the effectiveness of such programs.
absolutely true. i think parts of canada system are insane. on the extreme affirmative action side there was a first nations person studying to be a doctor having already failed the year twice, and having first choice in housing, having education paid for, getting cushy work-study positions and of course is accepted into the university again--to train to be a doctor. she didnt seem to pay hardly any consequences for her irresponsibility so it continued. (oh yeah and of course first nations don't pay canada taxes ). then there was a single mom who said she would have less if she got a job due to govt welfare being dependant on income, so it was worth it to just stay at home unemployed and homeschool her kids. Welfare programs are not that old and i'll be the right there to say they often need fixing and adjusting. but then, what doesn't? I believe there is a balance to be found there eventually.
Perhaps. I personally would not be entirely opposed to welfare if it could be funded by non-coercive means, and would only be available to people incapable of work(such as parapalegics).
Quote:
Quote:
Equality is a value for some in political philosophy, even if it isn't really for libertarians.
It is for libertarians as well. The difference is that while socialists and communists try to create actual economic equality for all(a pipe dream if you ask me), libertarians support equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law.
liberals want equal opportunity too, though they see injustice in such things as wealth inheritance, the genetic lottery and other ways that strict capitalism strays from an equal opportunity meritocracy and so that they believe that certain things should be slightly adjusted for.
I certainly believe there are certain economic injustices which keep people in poverty. The difference is that I do not believe these are caused by capitalism, but rather by what I like to call "corporate socialism." I also do not believe that stealing is the answer.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Please, show me your 'pure logic' political philosophy and I'll be glad to show why it is not.
I have neither the time nor patience to write an entire libertarian manifesto, but you can go through any number of threads about it. Especially try and see if you can refute pinksharkmark's arguments. I tried for a long time, and my failure(as well as everyone else's) to do so is part of what eventually led to me becoming libertarian.
I knew after i said that that you would not give me a purely logical political philosophy statement. i have respect for evolving and pinky, but youre just a linking, quoting parrot. you go to a CA university and become liberal, then come to this website and are bombarded by conservatives and become conservative.
And with that personal attack, I just lost all respect for you. First of all, I did not become liberal after going to this university(which is actually quite conservative by college standards). I was raised by liberal parents. Second, the reason I link and "parrot" arguments is because someone else has already said it better, so why should I try to say it differently? I readily admit that I do not have the intellectual abilities of Evolving or pinksharkmark, but then again, I don't think anyone else here does either. I use these arguments because they are effective. If you can give a proper rebuttal, you'll see I'm quite capable of logically defending these arguments. The reason I became libertarian(I really dislike the word "conservative") is because I could not defend liberalism anymore. And why should I have to go through the trouble of explaining libertarianism to you? Entire books have been written on the subject, and I'm sorry, but I don't feel like spending an hour responding to your posts. If you are so arrogant as to think your post warrants such an extensive response, then I have nothing to say to you.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
Edited by silversoul7 (05/19/04 02:27 PM)
|
Tao
Village Genius
Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
However, such an attitude seems to require a belief that the end justifies the means, which I cannot accept.
^^^^notice how thats a belief statement and not a logical statement. and at some point, if the end is large enough or the means is small enough, it will justify the end. would you condone toturing someone who had information to prevent a nuclear bomb?
Quote:
How is that selfish?
'selfish' meaning self-interested.
Quote:
Yet people continue to generously give to charity. Why is that?
seriously, please don't tell me you really believe that. i find people to be more stingy the more they make. i.e. rich conservatives from wealthy families
I also do not believe that stealing is the answer.
if there is any spending by society organizing itself, there will always be people who disagree with how their money is spent. lets say i disagree with stockpiling nuclear arms or the dept of homeland security--does this mean I'm being stole from? If so, then stealing is inevitable. and no, your land value tax dream does not solve that problem as in order to live they must be on land which they will then have to pay for. just a different form of taxation that will produce a hell of a lot less funds.
Quote:
If you are so arrogant
you=thinks his own arguments are logical and therefore correct
me=acknowledges that his argument, like any philosophy's, is based on values and assumptions.
i'm arrogant? the only thing I think I'm right about is that I don't think I nor anyone else can be completely logically right. with real logic, like most sciences for instance, comes consensus, and there is no academic consensus on political philosophy.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2701897 - 05/19/04 02:48 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Heres your problem. You are not actually thinking.
i'm not challenged to.
i feel like all i do here is point out the flaws in the same statements, over and over again. if someone here could make a sound (or at least new) argument in favor of the collectivist ethos, or attack against neoclassical liberalism (aka libertarianism), that would be fantastic. that's just what i'm looking for. alas, it doesn't seem as though it'll happen any time very soon. i am waiting for it however, with open ears and an open mind.
i'm not going anywhere. i'll be sticking around and posting. i value this community as a whole and i do value the political discussion here. i'm just looking for something to.. supplement it. you know?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Xlea321]
#2701914 - 05/19/04 02:53 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I thought you'd retired months ago mush, what made you come back?
oh, i've tried to pull myself away more than once...
but i can't keep away for long. i'm just trying to take it easy now... not get drawn into long, essentially meaningless arguments (such as: who has more nuclear weapons- russia, or america?  ). i'm trying to spend my time here constructively.
|
whiterasta
Day careobserver
Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
|
Re: other boards? [Re: ]
#2702585 - 05/19/04 06:20 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Do like I do and use "Quantum Logic" that is one can understand someones position or one can refute it.Either is a valid quantum state of logic.If this makes no sense I have sucessfully injected "quantum logic" into the discussion.
(J/K )
--------------------
To old for this place
|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,213
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 3 minutes, 4 seconds
|
Re: other boards? [Re: ]
#2703617 - 05/19/04 10:35 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
BTW, I was joking about being pissed.
I understand.
--------------------
--------------------------------
Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
Perhaps it could evolve. However, I see no changes in the world which would indicate a change in human nature. If you could point me to any, I'd love to see if you could prove me wrong.
The idea of "huamn nature" is a convenient myth. Why dont you prove to me that "human nature" actuaslly exists?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: ]
#2704481 - 05/20/04 02:56 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
i'm just a 20 year old guy who's read a couple books on philosophy and politics.
Therein lies the problem. Read more books. I'm sure you'll find that books written by people who have spent years thinking and researching will be filled with far more stimulating ideas and information than the casual posts of people with political axes to grind.
can anyone suggest another political discussion board that includes and tolerates different views (and is preferably visited by more well-read thinkers than late-adolescent mushroom growers)?
Well-read thinkers don't waste their time on internet message boards arguing with morons and buffoons (who are unfortunately drawn to all such boards like flies to shit). Well-read thinkers, as the term implies, spend their time reading (books, that is), thinking, and very often writing. Debate is actually a very poor form of thought--ego issues inevitably get in the way and people just tend to entrench themselves further in their own positions. Take a look at Edward de Bono's critique of the Socratic method and his ideas on lateral and creative thinking.
Books, man, books. The internet is addictive and fun, but most of it is just garbage.
If you want an articulation of your own libertarian ideas far superior to anything you'll find here, take a look at Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick. If you want a voice from the other side, try A Theory of Justice by John Rawls. Of course it doesn't hurt to read the seminal political philosphers, either. If you want a good starting point, pick up the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy and read it from cover to cover (don't worry, it's shorter and far less dry than most such dictionaries tend to be). Then go back and read the primary texts of the philosophers who intrigue you.
If you want long and thorough critiques of libertarianism, there are plenty here: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
Avoid the temptation just to read the FAQ and think you've got the gist of the site just from that. Scroll down to the "Subject Indexes" and take the time to read some of the longer, sustained critiques therein.
It is always helpful to bear in mind that every system of thought springs from a set of axiomatic (taken to be true, but not provable as such) assumptions. It doesn't matter how solidly constructed an argument is--if you don't accept the assumptions, you will not accept the conclusions. This is why most philosophical questions never admit of easy resolutions, regardless of how rigorous the logic applied. This is even true in mathematics, as Goedel's theory of undecidability has made clear.
BTW, I find there is a widespread misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "logic" on this board. Logic is essentially a set of rules for ensuring the internal consistency of a set of statements. If the propositions with which one begins are not valid, the logically-arrived-at conclusion will also be invalid. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
|
grib
Registered: 03/01/03
Posts: 550
Loc: Here and there
Last seen: 9 years, 9 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2704891 - 05/20/04 09:08 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I just think that philosophy is a little bit selfish and really doesnt cater for caring for those in society who actually need help.
Family, churches and charities are there to help those in society who can't fend for themselves.
--------------------
<~>Our truest life is when we are in dreams awake <~>
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2704952 - 05/20/04 09:36 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Quote:
Perhaps it could evolve. However, I see no changes in the world which would indicate a change in human nature. If you could point me to any, I'd love to see if you could prove me wrong.
The idea of "huamn nature" is a convenient myth. Why dont you prove to me that "human nature" actuaslly exists?
Perhaps the "human condition" would be a better term here, and that is essentially what libertarianism deals with. We require certain freedoms in order to survive. Among these is the freedom to keep that which we earn(i.e. owning property) and the freedom to defend it from others. I suppose I could go into greater detail, but let's leave it at that for now, as this is the basic cornerstone of libertarianism.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
We require certain freedoms in order to survive. Among these is the freedom to keep that which we earn(i.e. owning property) and the freedom to defend it from others
Surely we all keep a portion of what we earn even under a "leftist" government?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Xlea321]
#2705013 - 05/20/04 09:52 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said:
We require certain freedoms in order to survive. Among these is the freedom to keep that which we earn(i.e. owning property) and the freedom to defend it from others
Surely we all keep a portion of what we earn even under a "leftist" government?
Under those conditions, you are only allowed to keep what the government says you can keep. Thus, the government is violating property rights by taking what is not rightfully theirs. Furthermore, it is illegal to defend yourself from this theft.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
Dont confuse "the freedom to keep that which we earn(i.e. owning property) and the freedom to defend it from others." with the human condition or human nature. It is merely a philosophy. Man does not have any intrinisic rights or freedoms. He only has demands.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2705082 - 05/20/04 10:17 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Dont confuse "the freedom to keep that which we earn(i.e. owning property) and the freedom to defend it from others." with the human condition or human nature. It is merely a philosophy.
So to you, philosophy=false?
Quote:
Man does not have any intrinisic rights or freedoms. He only has demands.
Rights are that which is owed to someone by their government. The government owes it to us to protect our freedom to keep that which we earn. Thus, our natural rights are determined by our demands. This is my simple answer for now. Perhaps pinky can explain it better.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
The government owes it to us to protect our freedom to keep that which we earn.
I keep plenty of what I earn.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Xlea321]
#2705133 - 05/20/04 10:31 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
So, does that mean it's all right for the government to confiscate other people's wealth?
--------------------
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.
|
vampirism
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
|
|
are you sure libertarianism works by "human nature", rather than a Kantian philosophy of human dignity? Human nature is completely different and untouchable, while human dignity, never using man as a means to an ends, is just a moral philosophy which can work just as well as Utilitarianism in theory
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: vampirism]
#2705174 - 05/20/04 10:40 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Libertarianism could be derived from Kantian ethics, but it is more grounded in Locke's idea of Natural Rights.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Tao
Village Genius
Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
EchoVortex said:
A Theory of Justice by John Rawls.
 Great book. Not to say I agreed with everything in it, but great contemporary philosophy that should be read by all.
Quote:
It is always helpful to bear in mind that every system of thought springs from a set of axiomatic (taken to be true, but not provable as such) assumptions. It doesn't matter how solidly constructed an argument is--if you don't accept the assumptions, you will not accept the conclusions. This is why most philosophical questions never admit of easy resolutions, regardless of how rigorous the logic applied. This is even true in mathematics, as Goedel's theory of undecidability has made clear.
Quote:
Logic is essentially a set of rules for ensuring the internal consistency of a set of statements. If the propositions with which one begins are not valid, the logically-arrived-at conclusion will also be invalid. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
READ THIS PEOPLE I think few seem to understand this well.
Quote:
BTW, I find there is a widespread misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "logic" on this board.
I agree, it is thrown around way too much and 99%, not used correctly, just saying "well my arguments are logical and therefore right, yours are not."
Great post, I've been trying to explain this idea recently, but yours is more eloquent.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2705488 - 05/20/04 11:59 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Actually, i agree with alot of what mush has to say but I just think that philosophy is a little bit selfish and really doesnt cater for caring for those in society who actually need help.
Being against the initiation of force in no way implies that one is against caring for those in society who actually need help. Many people are against the initiation of force and for helping out those who need help. One can hold both of these concepts as moral precepts with no cognitive dissonance. If I send agents of the state to take the wealth of another, use most of that wealth to pay for the services of those agents, and have them disburse the remainder to some who may be in need, I have not performed a moral act. I have in fact initiated a moral transgression to make another fund what would be a moral act for him if done voluntarily.
--------------------
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.
|
MetaShroom
菌类人
Registered: 06/02/02
Posts: 1,462
Loc: East Anglia UK
Last seen: 16 years, 10 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: ]
#2706332 - 05/20/04 02:49 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
This place compares well to other sites on the net. THIS forum for example looks a bit mad. Check this thread for reasoned arguments and discussion
--------------------
  
JOIN MAPS -> www.MAPS.ORG
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
So to you, philosophy=false?
I dont really see how you have made that assumption!
As for the issue of rights all I am saying is that as human beings we only have rights that we bestow upon ourselves. We are not given any rights by nature itself.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Evolving]
#2706653 - 05/20/04 03:47 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Being against the initiation of force in no way implies that one is against caring for those in society who actually need help.
]
I agree. I was going by what Mush himself has said in the past.
Quote:
I send agents of the state to take the wealth of another, use most of that wealth to pay for the services of those agents, and have them disburse the remainder to some who may be in need, I have not performed a moral act.
Once again I agree. I think the point where we would disagree on this would be over whether providing for others in society should be voluntary. If it worked it would be fine but would you be willing to persist with that course of action if the voluntary comtributions being made were simply not enough to provide for those in need?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
|
hey, thanks for the suggestions and the link.
the 'internal consistency' thing is very true (i think...hmm...).
|
Tao
Village Genius
Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: ]
#2709792 - 05/21/04 02:20 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
One more suggestion if you're looking to truly see the other side of the argument: Go to a non-western country. I had a indian (not native american) professor once who once was trying to explain to me how its hard to really understand completely different cultural and political mindsets--how some cultures and peoples truly value the progress of their community, different from the american's version of valuing the freedom of the individual. I'm not saying either vision is 'correct', only that visiting another country is a way to get outside the box, look at yourself from the outside, see other perspectives. im not suggesting this as a way to 'change your mind' only as a way to see other points of view, broaden your horizons, etc.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
if you can refute pinksharkmark's arguments. I tried for a long time, and my failure(as well as everyone else's) to do so is part of what eventually led to me becoming libertarian.
Oh dear! Mark is very good at sounding like he knows exactly what he is talking about. Many of his arguements have been taken apart by quite a few people on this board, just because he has a pathological inability to admit he is wrong does not mean he never is!!
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2710421 - 05/21/04 09:14 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Quote:
if you can refute pinksharkmark's arguments. I tried for a long time, and my failure(as well as everyone else's) to do so is part of what eventually led to me becoming libertarian.
Oh dear! Mark is very good at sounding like he knows exactly what he is talking about. Many of his arguements have been taken apart by quite a few people on this board, just because he has a pathological inability to admit he is wrong does not mean he never is!!
Where was I when this happened? I've always seen him walk all over those who think they're smart enough to challenge him. Perhaps you could link me to an instance where his arguments were taken apart, because I'd really love to see it.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
|
well, there's this long and boring thread:
phi1618, Frakiejusttrypt vs. ss7, pinksharkmark in a battle of pure frustration and lack of clear communication
Myself, I'm really just not interested in arguing w/ libertarians about libertarian ideals any more. The gov't isn't going away, and there are alot of periferal issues we agree on.
Libertarians argue from principle, and use a fundamentally deontological system of values. I argue from practicality, w/ a little princple mixed in where practicality is impractical, and use a more-or-less teleological system of values. As far as I can see, it is not a question of right vs. wrong, but a question of differing assumptions. Of course, natural rights advocates disagree; but, so what?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2710456 - 05/21/04 09:34 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
phi1618 said:
well, there's this long and boring thread:
phi1618, Frakiejusttrypt vs. ss7, pinksharkmark in a battle of pure frustration and lack of clear communication
Looks like a pretty clear victory for pinksharkmark there.
Quote:
Myself, I'm really just not interested in arguing w/ libertarians about libertarian ideals any more. The gov't isn't going away, and there are alot of periferal issues we agree on.
Fair enough.
Quote:
Libertarians argue from principle, and use a fundamentally deontological system of values.
To an extent, yes.
Quote:
I argue from practicality, w/ a little princple mixed in where practicality is impractical, and use a more-or-less teleological system of values. As far as I can see, it is not a question of right vs. wrong, but a question of differing assumptions. Of course, natural rights advocates disagree; but, so what?
"So what" is a a valid question. So why are you here? Why argue politics at all? What's the point?
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Tao]
#2710458 - 05/21/04 09:35 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
It is always helpful to bear in mind that every system of thought springs from a set of axiomatic (taken to be true, but not provable as such) assumptions. It doesn't matter how solidly constructed an argument is--if you don't accept the assumptions, you will not accept the conclusions. This is why most philosophical questions never admit of easy resolutions, regardless of how rigorous the logic applied. This is even true in mathematics, as Goedel's theory of undecidability has made clear.
It is important to differentiate between reason and formal logic, which is its most extreme form. Goedel's Incompleteness theory applies to formal logical systems, and proves that there is no such thing as a complete and self-consistent formal logical system.
This last should be considered carefully by the more extreme advocates of natural rights on this board.
On the other hand, rational thought is much less grand: completness and universal consistency are really beside the point. If I'm trying to plan a garden, rational thought is very usefull; however, I'm not trying to find the one true and eternal garden through my use of reason; I'm just trying to avoid stupid decisions, and I will probably avoid using set theory while doing so.
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
Looks like a pretty clear victory for pinksharkmark there.
WTF???
Did you even read it?
What planet are you from, anyway?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2710464 - 05/21/04 09:38 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
phi1618 said:
Quote:
Looks like a pretty clear victory for pinksharkmark there.
WTF???
Did you even read it?
What planet are you from, anyway?
One which recognizes the clear winner in such an argument.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
Why argue politics at all? What's the point?
We may be unlikely to agree on fundamental issues. However, the name of this board is "Politics, Activism, and Law", not "the fundamental order of the universe".
We can accept some disagreements, decide that it's really not worth hashing them out, but still agree on other things.
For example, on the "activism" strain, see my post on the DMCRA. I think that believers in natural rights can agree with me that this is a good law, that should be passed.
If they care, and are willing to accept this imperfect world, they can use the established system and contact their congressmen/women, and have some tiny influence rather than sitting here engaging in mutual mental masturbation.
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
|
I'm not claiming that I won, but that we came to an impasse.
The basic argument, as I understand it, is that rights are necessary to the survival of man, and therefor natural. Whatever you say about knocking the food out of a mans hand before he can eat it, you can't convince me that my life depends on my ability to smoke pot.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2710492 - 05/21/04 09:47 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
phi1618 said:
The basic argument, as I understand it, is that rights are necessary to the survival of man, and therefor natural. Whatever you say about knocking the food out of a mans hand before he can eat it, you can't convince me that my life depends on my ability to smoke pot.
An excellent point, and one which I am too tired to refute right now(I just got up). I'll either try to get to this later, or see if someone else like pinky or Evolving gets to it first.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
|
You're missing the point: I don't want to get back into this discussion. I spent a long time on this shit not that long ago, and don't want to do it again. Nobody read the discussion, and you just assumed pinky won. We were arguing in circles; I refuted his points, he refuted my counter-arguments; and eventually we were coming back to the same claims we started out with. It wasn't very fun, and I don't anticipate any future experience being any different.
The most powerful argument against the notion of natural rights as espoused by many on this board is TaoTeChings about the nature of logic: logic is empty of content, and provides form only (not quite true - there are assumptions behind even tautologies - but close enough). There CANNOT be a pure logical system of ethics, or of any science or art besides mathematics.
Of course, pinky would claim (sorry for putting words in your mouth, pinky) that natural rights are based on logic and universally accessable observation; I'd question what constitutes a universally accessable observation, and how it applies to the concept of rights, something fundamentally unobservable, having no effects or substance; he'd start talking about knocking the water out of sombodies hand; I'd mention the fact that my survival doesn't depend on rights (like above); he'd point out that that isn't the point at all, that the argument about knocking water out of sombodies hand is an illustritive example, not the substance of rights; I'd say 'huh - what the hell are you talking about?' and he'd hit his head on the desk. Sounds fun, eh?
In any case, I do not expect to convert pinky, and I don't care to convert you, because I have no cause to convert you to. I decide things ad hoc, and am perfectly willing to change my mind, particularly on small issues. I have no logically consistent system of ethics.
I believe that reason has a vital role in political and ethical decision making, but that it is more like planning a garden than it is like mathematics.
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
An excellent point, and one which I am too tired to refute right now(I just got up). I'll either try to get to this later, or see if someone else like pinky or Evolving gets to it first.
No offense SS7, but this like the third or fourth time in this thread alone that you've made appeals to other people to make your arguments for you, and I can't hold my tongue any longer.
After hearing you state umpteen times that the reason your beliefs changed was because you could no longer defend them in debate, it is ironic to say the least to see you do something I've never seen anyone else on this board ever do: ask somebody else to speak in your name on matters of philosophic belief and conscience.
Are we to assume that Evolving or pinky's reply to this question would be exactly the same as your own? If that is the case, then why are you even here since you have effectively surrendered your intellectual autonomy and declared yourself redundant?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
EchoVortex said:
After hearing you state umpteen times that the reason your beliefs changed was because you could no longer defend them in debate, it is ironic to say the least to see you do something I've never seen anyone else on this board ever do: ask somebody else to speak in your name on matters of philosophic belief and conscience.
I tend to agree with them a lot, ok? Is that so wrong? Do I have to be totally original in my beliefs? Have your beliefs not been influenced by other people? It's not that I'm incapable of defending my own beliefs. It's that I don't like having to do it all by myself. I find they are more articulate.
Quote:
Are we to assume that Evolving or pinky's reply to this question would be exactly the same as your own?
It usually is. If I disagree with something they say, I usually point it out.
Quote:
If that is the case, then why are you even here since you have effectively surrendered your intellectual autonomy and declared yourself redundant?
I am not the smartest man alive. I don't have all the answers, and sometimes I could use a little help. It's not that I'm incapable of thinking for myself. It's that I don't like to spend hours upon hours writing out articulate replies to everything people ask of me. I've been busy with school lately, and as such do not have as much time as I'd like. When I have more time readily available to me, I will spend more of it trying to articulate my arguments.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
|
I tend to agree with them a lot, ok? Is that so wrong? Do I have to be totally original in my beliefs? Have your beliefs not been influenced by other people? It's not that I'm incapable of defending my own beliefs. It's that I don't like having to do it all by myself. I find they are more articulate.
There's nothing wrong with agreeing with others or being influenced by others. It's bad form, however, to engage people in debate, make assertions, and then when they ask you to support those assertions to say, "Nah, I don't feel like it. Go talk to X, Y, and Z." You're wasting your interlocutor's time, and on top of that you're expecting X, Y, and Z to spend their time doing something that you claim not to have enough time to do yourself.
Anyway, just my personal opinion.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
I understand what you're saying, but it's not that I'm expecting them to argue for me. I simply said I would get to it later, UNLESS they got to it first. Please read my statement more carefully.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
Quote:
phi1618 said:
The basic argument, as I understand it, is that rights are necessary to the survival of man, and therefor natural. Whatever you say about knocking the food out of a mans hand before he can eat it, you can't convince me that my life depends on my ability to smoke pot.
An excellent point, and one which I am too tired to refute right now(I just got up). I'll either try to get to this later, or see if someone else like pinky or Evolving gets to it first.
Ok, I've thought about this for a minute, and here's what I've come up with: It is true that your survival does not depend on being able to smoke pot. HOWEVER, it does depend on your self-sovereignty. The most fundamental aspect of Natural Rights is self-ownership. This is the underlying assumption behind the concept, and if you do not believe that people own themselves, then I guess there can be no argument made. From self-ownership comes the right to defend oneself. It also follows that self-ownership includes the right to sustain one's life. As pinksharkmark pointed out in this thread, property is a necessary condition for sustaining one's own life(as seen in his example of stripping a person naked and taking everything away from them).
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2711367 - 05/21/04 01:29 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
phi1618 said:
well, there's this long and boring thread:
phi1618, Frakiejusttrypt vs. ss7, pinksharkmark in a battle of pure frustration and lack of clear communication
Myself, I'm really just not interested in arguing w/ libertarians about libertarian ideals any more. The gov't isn't going away, and there are alot of periferal issues we agree on.
Libertarians argue from principle, and use a fundamentally deontological system of values. I argue from practicality, w/ a little princple mixed in where practicality is impractical, and use a more-or-less teleological system of values. As far as I can see, it is not a question of right vs. wrong, but a question of differing assumptions. Of course, natural rights advocates disagree; but, so what?
Looks like a crystal clear ass kicking with the boot clearly wedged way the fuck up YOUR ass.
Did it hurt much? Have you had it removed yet?
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
Lets take Pinky's first post from that thread shall we?
Quote:
People, and organizations, have the rights accorded them by the government...
Two things wrong in that sentence fragment:
1) Government doesn't (and in fact cannot) accord people rights. All governments can do is to recognize the rights people are born with and to attempt to prevent others from violating those rights.
2) Organizations have no rights. The individuals who comprise the organization have rights. One gains no new rights by joining a group, nor does one forfeit the rights one had before joining the group.
Firstly, people are not born with rights. The only rights we have are those which society bestows upon us. I.e the right to free speech. Rights are wholly dependent on where a human is born and it is indeed the government which accords these rights.
And groups do not have rights? Thats funny as Im sure Ive seen Pinky supporting the Jews right to live in Israel. Or The US's right to attack Iraq...hmm not very consistent.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
No offense SS7, but this like the third or fourth time in this thread alone that you've made appeals to other people to make your arguments for you, and I can't hold my tongue any longer.
perhaps you should have. SS7 is correct. When it's been done so articulately, there is little more to add.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2711497 - 05/21/04 02:00 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Firstly, people are not born with rights. The only rights we have are those which society bestows upon us. I.e the right to free speech. Rights are wholly dependent on where a human is born and it is indeed the government which accords these rights.
Bullshit. You are born with self-ownership. You own your body and your mind. This is self-apparent. It follows, then, that it is your natural right to protect yourself and further your own existence. As pinky has already demonstrated, we need property to further our survival, and thus it is a right as well. Government has nothing to do with granting rights. It can either recognize and protect them, or violate them.
Quote:
And groups do not have rights? Thats funny as Im sure Ive seen Pinky supporting the Jews right to live in Israel. Or The US's right to attack Iraq...hmm not very consistent.
While I don't necessarily agree with pinky on either of those two matters, people do have a right to further their own existence, as I have pointed out.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
Bullshit eh? Self ownership is a desire not a right. If you are born in a society which doesnt recognise an individuals self ownership then no such thing exists. The so called right to protect yourself is also a desire not a right. The idea of natural rights is a product of the human mind, these are not rights which exist independent of the mind of man. And because of this self-evident truth it follows that the concept of natural rights is a variable not a constant, dependent upon the society in which you live.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2711937 - 05/21/04 03:46 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Bullshit eh? Self ownership is a desire not a right.
This shows me that you simply cannot be reasoned with. As such, I will not bother responding to the rest of your post.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
You own your body and your mind
Do you "own" the thoughts and ideas in your mind? Or just the mind? How many of the thoughts and ideas in your mind are your own?
Do people born into slavery "own" their bodies?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
This shows me that you simply cannot be reasoned with. As such, I will not bother responding to the rest of your post.
WTF?? I think you will find there are plenty of people in the world who dont agree with Rand or Locke's interpretations of natural rights.
It is clear to me what you actually mean is you are incapable of actually forming a coherent arguement....Oh Pinky, where are you??
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Xlea321]
#2711992 - 05/21/04 04:05 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said:
You own your body and your mind
Do you "own" the thoughts and ideas in your mind? Or just the mind? How many of the thoughts and ideas in your mind are your own?
You own all the thoughts created in your mind, even if they were influenced by someone else.
Quote:
Do people born into slavery "own" their bodies?
Yes, regardless of whether or not their master chooses to recognize this.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2711999 - 05/21/04 04:06 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Quote:
This shows me that you simply cannot be reasoned with. As such, I will not bother responding to the rest of your post.
WTF?? I think you will find there are plenty of people in the world who dont agree with Rand or Locke's interpretations of natural rights.
Owning your body is not matter of rights. It is a self-apparent FACT.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
No it is not a self apparent fact. Ownership implies control. If you are a slave you simply do not own your own body. It is not yours to do with as you wish. How is this ownership?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2712068 - 05/21/04 04:25 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Your body is your own whether the slave owner recognizes that fact or not. He is merely an asshole preventing you from doing as you wish.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2712083 - 05/21/04 04:29 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I own my car. If someone steals it, breaks into it, or drives it around, it is still my car, regardless of their actions with it. Same thing with the body. Someone may attempt to coerce you into using your body for their wishes, but you still own it.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
No, the slave master owns your body. He can sell it, give it away, or kill it if he so chooses. That is ownership. If I have a car that I cant sell or drive where I choose how can I possibly pretend that I own the car?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Prove it
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2712100 - 05/21/04 04:32 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
He can sell it, give it away, or kill it if he so chooses. That is ownership.
There, in a nutshell, we have it 
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
|
I'm pretty sure that if I took your car, filed the serial numbers, chopped it up and sold the pieces, or whatever else car thieves do to move their wares, it would no longer be your car. You would be carfree.
As far as your body goes...
Answer me this: what is it that moves your body? If you were to follow the chain of causation from your action of typing backwards, where would it end?
Edited by phi1618 (05/21/04 04:39 PM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2712107 - 05/21/04 04:34 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
No, the slave master owns your body. He can sell it, give it away, or kill it if he so chooses. That is ownership. If I have a car that I cant sell or drive where I choose how can I possibly pretend that I own the car?
No, he has merely seized it by force. He doesn't own it. You do.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
In what sense do you own it? He can sell you, make you work or kill you at will with the full backing of the law.
Prove to me that a slave owns his own body.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Xlea321]
#2712124 - 05/21/04 04:38 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Is the law that allowed that correct? Is it right? Is it just?
No? You then, still own your body. You can donate your bits and pieces, you can make it work, you can kill yourself.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
A slave naster hasnt stolen the body if slavery is legal in the society he exists in. Something has just occured to me, these so called natural rights are the supposed cornerstone of the US, Jefferson said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - how does slavery fit with that? Seems these natural rights only count when its convenient. Did anyone stop to ask Jefferson why these rights are self evident? Surely not just because Locke said so....
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2712135 - 05/21/04 04:41 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
People once believed they had the right to own others, people also believed the world was flat.
Both groups were wrong.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Is the law that allowed that correct? Is it right? Is it just?
Does it matter? We are talking about whether a slave owns his body when it can be sold, worked and killed at the will of his master
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Xlea321]
#2712155 - 05/21/04 04:44 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Does it matter?
Yes.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
People were wrong about the earth being flat but people did have the right to own others. We have collectively decided to deny ourselves that right now. See how transient rights actually are?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Yes.
How?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2712189 - 05/21/04 04:52 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
but people did have the right to own others.
But did they truly? The law said so, but it was wrong.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Xlea321]
#2712192 - 05/21/04 04:54 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said:
Yes.
How?
How what? Is the following correct or not?
Is the law that allowed that correct? Is it right? Is it just?
If no, what more is there?
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Can you prove the law was wrong?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Xlea321]
#2712202 - 05/21/04 04:57 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Should people be allowed to own others?
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
rights, laws and morality are all relative. We probabaly have laws which future generations will think were barbaric and I dont just mean drug laws!
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Should people be allowed to own others?
You are making the claim the law was wrong. Prove it.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2712227 - 05/21/04 05:04 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think rights or morality are subjective. I realize others will see that differently, but my belief is they are wrong. Laws I'll agree with you on.
Quote:
We probabaly have laws which future generations will think were barbaric and I dont just mean drug laws!
True enough.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Xlea321]
#2712242 - 05/21/04 05:10 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said:
Should people be allowed to own others?
You are making the claim the law was wrong. Prove it.
Should people be allowed to own others?
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Tao
Village Genius
Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
I don't think rights or morality are subjective.
What is your reasoning behind this? I took an entire course regarding metaethics and I (nor most anyone else in the class) found no satisfactory justification of such a claim of moral obectiveness. How does one determine what is normal and what is not? Kantian ethics?
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Tao]
#2712255 - 05/21/04 05:14 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kantian ethics?
I'm not familiar with that term.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Tao
Village Genius
Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
|
I just mean Immanuel Kant's philosophy, the most famous argument for moral objectivity which is generally not very respected any more (though influential), not even by neo-Kant's.
I just mean, what justification do you have for saying whether or not something is right? Overall happiness? Universalizing maxims? Using someone as a means to an end rather than and end in themselves? what?
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Tao]
#2712317 - 05/21/04 05:25 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I just mean, what justification do you have for saying whether or not something is right?
Common sense and logical thought.
As I said, I realize some will disagree.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Immanual Kant devised an ethical system to counter the prevailing Utilitarianism(which many liberals here seem to espouse). Utilitarianism was a variation of hedonism which stated that the right thing to do was that which caused the greatest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain for the greatest number of people.
Kant rejected this because it ignored individual rights. Kant said that if something is wrong(say theft for instance), it is wrong absolutely. No if's and's or but's about it. He said that you determine what's right or wrong by applying it to everyone in the world. If something is right for you, it must be right for everyone, so picture it being ok for everyone in the world to do it, and see what kind of world that would be. Same thing for things that are wrong.
Both systems have their flaws, but IMO the Kantian system works better in most situations.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Thanks. I think I'll do a bit more reading on the subject.
Kant sounds pretty sharp.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Tao
Village Genius
Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
Immanual Kant devised an ethical system to counter the prevailing Utilitarianism(which many liberals here seem to espouse). Utilitarianism was a variation of hedonism which stated that the right thing to do was that which caused the greatest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain for the greatest number of people.
Kant rejected this because it ignored individual rights. Kant said that if something is wrong(say theft for instance), it is wrong absolutely. No if's and's or but's about it. He said that you determine what's right or wrong by applying it to everyone in the world. If something is right for you, it must be right for everyone, so picture it being ok for everyone in the world to do it, and see what kind of world that would be. Same thing for things that are wrong.
Both systems have their flaws, but IMO the Kantian system works better in most situations.
No offense, but both those descriptions are kind of misleading. first, contemporary utilitarianism is about happiness and well-being, not just hedonistic pleasure. as for your description of kantianism, he did not reject utilitarianism because it ignored individual rights and then develop his theory, Jeremy Bentham released his theory of utilitarianism 4 years after Kant released his. and it is not about looking at what the world would look like if everyone accepted your maxim, its about whether there would be a contradiction in will or practice or....this is getting into S&P i think i'll stop.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Should people be allowed to own others?
What does my opinion count? If you ask a Neo-nazi the question you'll get a different answer.
You made a claim a law was wrong. Prove it.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Xlea321]
#2714042 - 05/22/04 05:08 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said:
Should people be allowed to own others?
What does my opinion count? If you ask a Neo-nazi the question you'll get a different answer.
You made a claim a law was wrong. Prove it.
So, you think the law wasn't wrong? It's OK to own other people?
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
What I "think" has no relevance. You made a statement the law was wrong. Prove it.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Xlea321]
#2714107 - 05/22/04 06:53 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So, you think the law wasn't wrong? It's OK to own other people?
I'm asking a question. Do you think the law was right? Do you think it was OK to own people?
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Tao
Village Genius
Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
So, you think the law wasn't wrong? It's OK to own other people?
I'm asking a question. Do you think the law was right? Do you think it was OK to own people?
 I think youre missing the point. the point is one cannot say that something is objectively right or wrong. its subjective. its like abortion rights, how someone can think abortion is wrong, but since they don't know it is wrong, since it is beyond our rational capacity to exactly pinpoint when a human life begins, they do not think it should be illegal. How did this thread get into the moral objectivity question just like the other one?
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Tao]
#2715157 - 05/22/04 04:06 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Tell me.... objectively of course, how is beating a baby to death right? Rape? Murder? Theft? Slavery?
Objective my ass. There is right and wrong.
I'm missing no point. I merely find your line of thought.... mind boggling.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Anonymous
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Tao]
#2715174 - 05/22/04 04:13 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
if there is no right or wrong, it still doesn't logically follow that the state should be permitted anything that regular citizens aren't.
if there is no right or wrong anyone can do anything.
there is no right or wrong. there is no justifiable or injustifiable. there isn't even such a concept as justice. if there is no right or wrong, then there can be nothing wrong with leaving children to starve or poor folks to die of malnourishment or hypothermia, as you are so opposed to.
a denunciation of ethics is a poor foundation for an idea of what a just state should be. more accurately, it is a total lack of a foundation.
Edited by mushmaster (05/22/04 04:20 PM)
|
FrankieJustTrypt
and fell
Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 9 years, 9 months
|
|
Tell me.... objectively of course, how is beating a baby to death right? Rape? Murder? Theft? Slavery?
Objectivity is basically the lowest common denominator of reality. And at that level you can't have right or wrong. There will always be one guy that thinks beating babies to death is right because they make too much noise when you cook them alive, she was asking for it, god wanted them dead, they needed it, they are lesser humans, etc....
Objectivity
n.
External or material reality.
--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.
|
Starter
Stranger
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 1,148
Loc: Australia
|
Re: other boards? [Re: ]
#2717399 - 05/23/04 02:52 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
can anyone suggest another political discussion board that includes and tolerates different views (and is preferably visited by more well-read thinkers than late-adolescent mushroom growers)?
Try the Overgrow Political Debate & War forum. They now have a no flame policy. It's a larger forum than this one. I won't say anything else, you can make up your own mind.
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
Re: other boards? [Re: ]
#2717502 - 05/23/04 04:38 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I know I don't post here a lot, but I think your leaving this forum would be a great loss. I don't always agree with what you have to say, but I think you add a unique balancing viewpoint. Just my .02. 
|
DigitalDuality
enthusiast
Registered: 04/29/04
Posts: 354
Last seen: 17 years, 11 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: ]
#2717503 - 05/23/04 04:39 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
I don't think rights or morality are subjective. I realize others will see that differently, but my belief is they are wrong. Laws I'll agree with you on.
Oh the irony...
==========================
And don't get me wrong, i couldn't beat Kant in a debate if he were alive. But morality and choices to me seem to be situational and consequential, not just as a reflection of harm/pleasure to self, but to others as well.
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: ]
#2717666 - 05/23/04 07:58 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
if there is no right or wrong anyone can do anything.
What we are discussing is not the existance of right and wrong, but the location of right and wrong.
I think that right and wrong are inherent in our society, that the right and wrong inherent in human nature is far more rudimentary than the advocates of natural rights claim. But, just because I believe that morality has a traditional rather than natural basis doens't mean that I deny they existance of right and wrong - I just don't think that they have a basis which is independent of the society we live in, and the conditions under which we grew up.
|
unbeliever
Yo Daddy!
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
can anyone suggest another political discussion board that includes and tolerates different views (and is preferably visited by more well-read thinkers than late-adolescent mushroom growers)?
WWDN Soapbox has a very active debate forum with people from all sides of the fence (though the biggest group is probably moderate liberal). It's an 18 and over only forum and has a very high standard of debate. No rumors or accusations, proof and sources are actually part of the TOS in the sense that if you don't use some sort of links/sources, don't expect much respect. If you don't know what you're talking about, you won't last. That said, the people are very friendly and flame wars are essentially non-existant. It's based on the idea of attack the opinion, message or belief, not the person behind it.
--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: other boards? [Re: ]
#2721624 - 05/24/04 03:58 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
There are no absolute right or wrongs. Rights are relative and subjective. If the foundation of libertarianism relies on the fact that individuals have objective, inalienable rights then it is built on a false assumption.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2722284 - 05/24/04 10:51 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
There are no absolute right or wrongs.
Prove it.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
Quote:
GazzBut said:
There are no absolute right or wrongs.
Prove it.
By its forulation, "there are no ..." can never be proven, but can easily be disproven. In order to establish that it is false, all that is necessary is to give a single instance of an absolute right or wrong in nature (a hypothetical situation doesn't work). Of course, there needs to be a pre-existing idea of what would charaterize a naturally ocurring moral - how to tell if an action, such as the attack on the world trade center, qualifies as an action that we could characterize as universally, naturally wrong as opposed to wrong relative to our situation and value system.
On the other hand, the statement "there exists an absolute, naturally occuring moral code" is theoretically easy to prove, in that all that is needed is to find a single instance of an absolutely right or wrong action. However, it is impossible to disprove: in order to disprove this statment, it would have to be demonstrated that every action that ever occurs is morally neutral in an absolute sense - which is obviously impossible. This of course assumes that there is no logical contradiction inherent in the concept of a moral absolute - something that seems far from obvious to me.
So, by their formulations the first statement cannot be proven, the second cannot be disproven.
However, all this assumes both that the notion of moral absolutes makes sense (no inherent logical contradiction, as noted above) and that we could tell the difference between an action that is absolutely right or wrong as opposed to one that we consider wrong, but isn't universally or absolutely right or wrong. I can't see how this determination could practically be made.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2722705 - 05/24/04 12:24 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
My point was that rather than attempt to disprove the concept of natural rights, he merely makes the bold statement that there is no absolute right or wrong, without backing it up.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
|
My point is that the statement "there is no absolute right or wrong" is a safe assumption, because, if it is false, it should be easy to disprove.
Take, as an example, the statement "there is no right or wrong". To disprove this, I could point to the beheading of Nick Berg; nearly everyone on these boards would agree that that was wrong. So, the statement is false, and no more need be said.
If you make a positive statment, ie. "black swans exist", the onus is on you to positively prove it (an easy task). If you make a negitive statment, "there aren't any black swans, dipshit", you are under the obligation to consider contradicting evidence, but are not under the onus to prove the statement because it is impractically difficult or impossible to do so.
So I say, "there is no absolute right or wrong", absolute in this case meaning universal, relative to no man or society but a constant of nature; and, I can't prove it. However, if you can provide an agreeable way to tell if an action is absolutely wrong or right, and can show a naturally occuring action that fits the defined criteria, then I will be willing to acknowlege my former ignorance and accept the positive statement "actions can be right or wrong in an absolute sense."
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2722774 - 05/24/04 12:38 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
There are no absolute right or wrongs.
Then there is no compelling moral reason for those unaffected by such things to help the helpless, comfort or treat the ill, feed the hungry, house the homeless, arrest thieves and robbers, condemn rapists, jail murderers, stop racists from aggressively creating a pure society (as long as you are part of the favored race) and wars of aggression need no justification other than might makes right.
--------------------
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.
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Xlea321]
#2722784 - 05/24/04 12:39 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Here is a valuable quote from that article:
Quote:
The energy spent in arguing which rules exist should better be spent deciding which rules we should make.
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Evolving]
#2722809 - 05/24/04 12:45 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Then there is no compelling moral reason for those unaffected by such things to help the helpless, comfort or treat the ill, feed the hungry, house the homeless, arrest thieves and robbers, condemn rapists, jail murderers, stop racists from aggressively creating a pure society (as long as you are part of the favored race) and wars of aggression need no justification other than might makes right.
This is a fallacy.
The fact that moral rules don't have an objective, universal basis does not mean that they don't exist, or that we as a society should not enforce them.
It simply means that they our morals are subject to change. If it was once thought that women, as the weaker sex, belonged in a subservient position, and if it is now thought otherwise, this doesn't mean that we have recognized the natural order more clearly now, but that our society and the condition of our lives have changed.
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Xlea321]
#2722861 - 05/24/04 12:52 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Good article.
One thing I've been wondering about is why so many proponents of natural rights believe that they don't extend to animals.
Those who argued that natural rights were "God-given" could get away with this because they believed that man was created in God's image and was given the "right" (by God, of course) to have dominion over the Earth and everything on it.
But if one tries to give the argument for "natural" rights a rational or scientific basis, how does one draw the line only at the human animal? The anthropocentric bias of natural rights theory clearly belies its human, as opposed to "natural," origin.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
EchoVortex said:
One thing I've been wondering about is why so many proponents of natural rights believe that they don't extend to animals.
If an animal is attacked, it has a right to defend itself, just as a human does. Natural rights in terms of the right to be free from initiation of force only have relevance within society, and animals, with the possible exception of pets, are not part of society.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
If an animal is attacked, it has a right to defend itself, just as a human does. Natural rights in terms of the right to be free from initiation of force only have relevance within society, and animals, with the possible exception of pets, are not part of society.
A "right" to defend itself? What on earth are you talking about? Any animal will try to defend itself whether you believe it has the right to do so or not. And if it can't defend itself? Its killing was therefore justified? Freedom from initiation of force doesn't mean you merely have the right to defend yourself--that's actually a definition of "might makes right."
Secondly, by "society" I take it you mean "human society." If rights are only relevant within human society, then they are obviously "human social rights" and not "natural rights."
Your argument assumes the primacy of the human. Nature itself makes no such distinctions. If it did, we would be exempted by nature itself from the natural scourges of all life, namely pain, sickness, predation, mortality, and extinction. We are not.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2723012 - 05/24/04 01:35 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
phi1618 said:
This is a fallacy.
It is not a fallacy, if morals are elastic and relative, then I have no compelling reason to support your moral crusades or anyone elses.
Quote:
It simply means that they our morals are subject to change.
Should I conclude by your argument that the Nazis' actions of genocide are then morally justifiable due to the changing mores of German society of the 1930s and 1940s? Should I then also conclude that the 'Nuremberg Defense' was in fact a good defense and should have been enough to excuse the actions of those on trial? Should I conclude that slavery was right? Should I conclude that in 1950's Southern U.S. society that it was morally justifiable to lynch human beings because of their ancestry?
** edit for typo **
--------------------
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.
Edited by Evolving (05/24/04 02:11 PM)
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
A "right" to defend itself? What on earth are you talking about? Any animal will try to defend itself whether you believe it has the right to do so or not. And if it can't defend itself? Its killing was therefore justified? Freedom from initiation of force doesn't mean you merely have the right to defend yourself--that's actually a definition of "might makes right."
Pinksharkmark went over this before. If a person is isolated from society, they can do anything they wish. When other people come into the equation, then we are threatened by others' freedom to do as they wish, since their freedom includes the freedom to harm us. This gives us three options, then:
1. Run away from society
2. Attempt to kill everyone else in order to be the last one standing
3. Agree to not initiate force against one another
The third option is clearly the most reasonable one, and as such most of us choose this option. We form a government to enforce this agreement, thus creating society.
Now, animals also have these options. However, since they lack the ability to reason or communicate with us, it is hard for them to accept such an agreement, though they could be trained to not initiate force, as seen in the case of pets. As such, they are left with either option 1 or 2. Most animals stay away from human civilization. Occasionally, a bear or mountain lion will wander into a city and kill domesticated animals, in which case, they can either be killed or captured and returned to the wild.
Quote:
Secondly, by "society" I take it you mean "human society." If rights are only relevant within human society, then they are obviously "human social rights" and not "natural rights."
Human rights are only relevant within human society, yes. Wolf societies could very well have rights too, but they would only apply to wolves and the interaction between them. Animals are not a part of our society, and thus the rights of humans within human society are not extended to them.
Quote:
Your argument assumes the primacy of the human.
It does not. It merely assumes that rights are only relevant within society.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2723254 - 05/24/04 02:26 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
There are no absolute right or wrongs.
Perhaps then you'd care to share with us what is right about beating a baby to death?
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
Most people subjectively feel that is wrong of course and I agree. But im sure there have been cultures through history who have sacrificed children. To them it was not wrong.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
My point was that rather than attempt to disprove the concept of natural rights, he merely makes the bold statement that there is no absolute right or wrong, without backing it up.
So you havent bothered reading any of my other posts? Prove to me there are natural rights if you are so sure.
Quote:
Human rights are only relevant within human society, yes.
you really are very inconsistent! I thought these natural rights existed independently of man. How can that be if they are only relevant within human societies?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2723515 - 05/24/04 03:16 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I didn't ask, nor did you specify in your earlier comment, about the Aztecs and others. We are talking about today.
There is right, there is wrong.
Get over it.
Now an answer please....
Perhaps then you'd care to share with us what is right about beating a baby to death?
By the way, don't you think edited posts should be identified as such?
Edited by luvdemshrooms (05/24/04 03:21 PM)
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
My point is right and wrong is subjective. Just because you strongly feel something is right or wrong does not make it an objective truth for all humans at all times. Get over it. If this point is beyond your grasp at this time thats fine but thats the way it is.
Quote:
Perhaps then you'd care to share with us what is right about beating a baby to death?
Where have I said I thought it was right?? My subjective opinion is that beating a baby to death is wrong. You just dont get this do you?
Anyway, we were orginally talking about the natural rights that humans are born with. This magical myth that is the supposed cornerstone of libertarianism.
Quote:
By the way, don't you think edited posts should be identified as such?
Only if you are trying to win an arguement by changing what you have said. I merely added something - basically, get a life.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2723637 - 05/24/04 03:52 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
My point is right and wrong is subjective.
Sorry, but it's not.
I get your point. It's wrong. Just because the Aztecs believed it was OK to sacrifice, does not mean they were right. Just because it was once believed that blacks were less human, does not make it right.
Both were still wrong.
Just like editing posts, unless it's something as simple as a spelling error.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2723885 - 05/24/04 04:38 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Quote:
My point was that rather than attempt to disprove the concept of natural rights, he merely makes the bold statement that there is no absolute right or wrong, without backing it up.
So you havent bothered reading any of my other posts? Prove to me there are natural rights if you are so sure.
Pinksharkmark has already done a much better job of doing so than I could. However, just so no one accuses me of "dodging," I will attempt to rephrase the points he made.
Natural rights are nothing more than those which logically follow from our existence as a society. Outside of society, there is no distinction between "rights" and "abilities." When we come into contact with other people, we have the ability to kill or harm them, just as they can kill or harm us. So we could either flee or fight them, or agree to not to initiate force upon them. Therefore, you have agreed not to exercise your ability to harm them, and they have agreed to the same. You are left with all your other abilities, and these abilities now become rights.
Quote:
Quote:
Human rights are only relevant within human society, yes.
you really are very inconsistent! I thought these natural rights existed independently of man. How can that be if they are only relevant within human societies?
No, they do not exist independently of man, nor did I say they did. They exist independently of man's subjective opinions, but they require humans in order to be relevant to humans.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Evolving]
#2723980 - 05/24/04 05:04 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
It is not a fallacy, if morals are elastic and relative, then I have no compelling reason to support your moral crusades or anyone elses.
You support them because you agree - because, on many issues, you and I feel the same about what is right and what is wrong.
Quote:
It simply means that they our morals are subject to change.
Should I conclude by your argument that the Nazis' actions of genocide are then morally justifiable due to the changing mores of German society of the 1930s and 1940s? Should I then also conclude that the 'Nuremberg Defense' was in fact a good defense and should have been enough to excuse the actions of those on trial? Should I conclude that slavery was right? Should I conclude that in 1950's Southern U.S. society that it was morally justifiable to lynch human beings because of their ancestry?
Just because not all people share our sense of right and wrong doesn't mean that it's wrong to judge them with our own sense of morality. In my mind, slavery, the holocaust, and Aztec human sacrifice were all wrong. When making that judgement, I use my own sense of morality, and don't consider whether of not they considered their own actions wrong.
The only place you and I differ is on whether our societal and individual senses of what is right and wrong are in fact universal. To me, the simple fact that not everybody at every place and time agrees with us, and that you and I probably disagree on small points of morality, is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that our sense of morality is not, in fact, universal.
However, the fact that morality is not objective has no bearing on the judgements we make about morality - my sense of morality is my sense of morality whether I consider it objective or not.
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2724053 - 05/24/04 05:27 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Most people subjectively feel that is wrong of course and I agree. But im sure there have been cultures through history who have sacrificed children. To them it was not wrong.
In this detour into the subjectivity or objectivity of right and wrong, you forget the crux of the argument...the initiation of force is wrong, regardless of a specific culture's view. Applicable to the slavery, nazi, and sacrificial examples...can you give some others?
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2724211 - 05/24/04 06:12 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Okay, I think I get it...
Since morals are relative and subjective, there are no reasons to support any actions of the state except for the promotion of your own personal ends as long as you can rationalize that the means used to acheive those ends will mix well into the moral soup de jure.
--------------------
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.
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Ancalagon]
#2724212 - 05/24/04 06:12 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You argue first from man in his natural state, where he is free to act as he wills, and from the equality of men to each other. But, are we not now in our natural state - members of a society, with rules and traditions? As for equality - it is patently untrue that all men are equals in ability or talent - how is it that all men are equal?
Then, you argue that, as men are free from restraint in their natural state, and are equal, they should not act to infringe one anothers freedoms. However, "natural law" does not follow from "should".
Arguing in such a strained, logical, premises to conclusions manner blinds you to the practical impossibility of a world free from strife. There is only so much world; given unlimited liberty, people will inevitably use it up.
If I catch a fish in the ocean, no other man can catch that fish - I have limited their ability, and thus their liberty. The ocean is large - catch another. But when there are 100,000 ships on the sea, each catching thousands of fish, the population of fishes declines - it becomes harder and harder to catch fish. Eventually, a hungry fisher will have to fight to survive.
This is how the world has always been - resources are scarce; violence is the rule, peace the exception.
Action is the initiation of force.
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Evolving]
#2724231 - 05/24/04 06:17 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I have values, and I try to follow them. I think that right and wrong have a place in the law. I think we can agree on what has a place in the law to some extent, and can discuss specific disagreements. I don't really like the way people hijack the political process to advance their own ends at cost to the collective, but am not sure how a system could be designed to maximize the collective good.
I value my own wellbeing more than I value yours, it is true - but, I think the gov't should be run for the people, for the collective good. The best government is the one that is the best for the most people. More freedom is usually better than less because people usually know whats best for themselves, and are best equiped to represent their own interests. So, we really agree about alot in politics, just not on the nature of nature.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2724239 - 05/24/04 06:21 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Actually, the best government is the one that intrudes the least and does as little as possible.
Kind of like ours was meant to be, but sadly has strayed so far.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2724253 - 05/24/04 06:24 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
phi1618 said:
You argue first from man in his natural state, where he is free to act as he wills, and from the equality of men to each other. But, are we not now in our natural state - members of a society, with rules and traditions? As for equality - it is patently untrue that all men are equals in ability or talent - how is it that all men are equal?
Equality of liberty. When one man may live at the expense of another via the coercive mechanism of the state, the man that is forced to support another is not equal to the one that is supported.
Quote:
There is only so much world; given unlimited liberty, people will inevitably use it up.
If I catch a fish in the ocean, no other man can catch that fish - I have limited their ability, and thus their liberty....
Of course there are resources that are limitied, but there are other resources that are renewable. Additionally, HUMANS CREATE WEALTH. There is no demonstratable limit to the wealth that can be created or to human ingenuity.
Quote:
Action is the initiation of force.
He was referring to the intiation of force against another human.
--------------------
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.
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
|
Here we disagree. I think the best government is the one that promotes the highest quality of life.
However, there are two reasons why less invasive governments are more likely to accomplish this.
First, people differ on what constitutes a high quality of life, and are best equiped to make decide for themselves what is important.
Second, people tend to look out for themselves first. Government is inherently run by a subset of the people it governs - those that run the government will always look out for themselves first, just like everyone else. A more invasive government is likely to transfer wealth from the governed to the governors.
However, I think there are areas of life where collective action is superior to private initiative. Basic research benefits everyone, but isn't well suited to private enterprize because there is little imediate benefit. It is not unreasonable to use the state to diminish the effects of inheritence and the privalage of birth. Libertarians like to promote private charity, but there is no guarentee that charity will occur - see past and present class societies.
Basically, I think the gov't should follow more or less utilitarian principles, rather than blindly following any inflexable, deontological imperitive.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2724280 - 05/24/04 06:35 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
phi1618 said:
... I don't really like the way people hijack the political process to advance their own ends at cost to the collective
Any cost 'to the collective' is born by individuals.
Quote:
but am not sure how a system could be designed to maximize the collective good.
'The collective good' is a subjective term. First, it is necessary to define and delimit what 'the collective' is. Is it your city, your race, your country, the world, your religious group? Next, the subjective term 'good' must be determined. Good for whom, good for how many, good for what percentage, short term good at the expense of long term bad, long term good at the expense of short term hardship?
Quote:
The best government is the one that is the best for the most people.
No, the best government is the one that allows the most people to be free to pursue their own concepts of what is best for themselves (not what the people controlling the government thinks is best for them).
Quote:
... people usually know whats best for themselves, and are best equiped to represent their own interests.
Then why do we need government to act as our caretaker?
--------------------
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.
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Evolving]
#2724314 - 05/24/04 06:49 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Equality of liberty. When one man may live at the expense of another via the coercive mechanism of the state, the man that is forced to support another is not equal to the one that is supported.
To expand on a point I just made, what of equality of birth? If one person is born into poverty, has poor nutrition and little education in his young life, why shouldn't the state act to remedy the situation? Our government gives representation to those who vote - 1 man, 1 vote - not 1 dollar, 1 vote. So, when a minority controlls the majority of the wealth, there is a natural tendency to correct that inequity through the government, in which the large number of poorer people have a disproportionate influence compared to their economic power.
Quote:
Of course there are resources that are limitied, but there are other resources that are renewable. Additionally, HUMANS CREATE WEALTH. There is no demonstratable limit to the wealth that can be created or to human ingenuity.
You are an optimist, and that is comendable. However, I have a question:
Is the initation of force acceptable if it is percieved to be imperitive for survival?
For example, I met an Israeli man who served in the West Bank not long ago who felt that their war against the Palestinians was wrong, but that the Israeli people absolutely need their own nation to survive, culturally and in the flesh; that their war against the Palestinians is justified by their need. And, if you want to argue that he was mistaken in his belief, keep in mind that this man has never met his grandparents, who died in concentration camps.
And, certainly, there have been countless other examples of this in history and literature, of violence done for survival.
There can be no initiation of force; Every force is part of an unbroken chain or web of forces; no force has a origen or a terminus.
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Evolving]
#2724330 - 05/24/04 06:53 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
See, we actually agree!
Well, maybe not in extent or cause, but we're 90% of the way there without either of us budging.
As far as collective, I guess I'm refering to the collective good of people who vote 
More people should vote.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2724348 - 05/24/04 06:58 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
why shouldn't the state act to remedy the situation?
1. Why should they? are you going to lop a few inches of those with big dicks? Shorten those who are taller? Augment all breasts to the same size?
2. And best of all, because the constitution limits what government should do. (even if they don't always follow it)
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
Edited by luvdemshrooms (05/24/04 07:13 PM)
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
|
I read Harrison Bergeron in high school too, you know...
I don't think the constitution prohibits progressive tax schemes or public education?
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2724389 - 05/24/04 07:10 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Show me where it says the Feds can get involved in education.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2724397 - 05/24/04 07:12 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
For that matter show me where it says welfare, socialized medicine, social security and so much more is permitted for the feds to get involved in.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
|
See McCulloch v. Maryland (1819):
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/10.htm
Basically, this decision was on the constitutionality of the federal bank (originally est. 1791), and whether the states could tax its branches.
As far as I can tell, it rests primarily on two arguments:
1)Unlike the Articles of the Confederacy, Amendment X lacks the word "expressly", ie., it doesn't say "The powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor expressly prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
2) The following clause in Article 1 of the constitution:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power ...
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
To quote from the article linked above:
" Chief Justice Marshall not only endorsed the constitutionality of the bank, but went on to uphold a broad interpretation of the federal government's powers under the Constitution, and thus pave the way for the modern national state that would emerge after the Civil War. "
So, you and others might not agree that Marshall and the Supreme Court made a good decision, but they made that decision and all other desisions since then taken that decision as precedent.
If you don't like it, get on the Supreme Court.
Edit: The Constitution is the foundation of American law, but when the Supreme Court decides on the constitutionality of a law, it considers not only the text of the constitution but the entire history of decisions made before the one it considers, and overrules precident only rarely and with thourough explanation.
Edited by phi1618 (05/24/04 07:41 PM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2724512 - 05/24/04 07:49 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Anyone, including those on the Supreme Court who can read the 10th, and still believe the Feds can do anything other than what is in the Constitution, most likely believe in the tooth fairy. And probably also question what the definition of "is, is.
You are aware they also said blacks only counted as 1/2 a person?
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
|
I gotta say, looking at the words in the constitution, it looks pretty bad.
But, in Article 3, section 2: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution..."
So, the justices are within their assigned powers to interpret the constitution, even if you disagree with their interpretation.
I think that the federal reserve is a good thing to have, and that, in this case, Marshall made a good decision, even if his interpretation of the wording of the constitution seems a bit... awkward.
So, our laws and traditions, while founded on the constitution, extend far beyond the constitution. A minority, yourself included, don't think this should be the case.
Given today's state of affairs, I'm tempted to agree . But, not quite.
|
FrankieJustTrypt
and fell
Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 9 years, 9 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2725300 - 05/24/04 10:30 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
If you guys are still looking for universal objective right and wrongs... You should change right and wrong to possible and impossible.
Objectivity deals only with physical reality. Not the realities that go on in our heads.
To the best of my knowledge perpetual motion machines are universally wrong. As is traveling faster than the speed of light. Etc.
To say their are objective rights and wrongs is a fallacy in itself as those concepts are intangible; they don't even exist in the physical realm.
Universal rights and wrongs are basically in the same boat. 'Universal' has the tendency to be all-encompassing. Even in our limited knowledge of our corner in time, and our corner of the world we can still find exceptions to popular notions of right and wrong. If anyone can find an example of right and wrong that no one can find an example of exception, I'll be impressed. But then again proving such a thing is impossible as it would require knowledge of everything... Universal knowledge if you will, and if someone has that: Welcome God!
Oh and its right to beat a baby to death because it makes too much noise when you boil it alive.
--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
|
Now, animals also have these options. However, since they lack the ability to reason or communicate with us, it is hard for them to accept such an agreement, though they could be trained to not initiate force, as seen in the case of pets.
So the reason they are not extended rights is because they can't reason or communicate with us?
That means if I come across a mentally retarded beggar kid in Calcutta who possesses neither reason nor language, I can make shish kabobs out of him? Obviously that criterion doesn't work.
Maybe you're trying to say that rights only extend to homo sapiens. The problem there is that, for example, chimpanzees share 99.4% of the same genetic code with human beings. Why does that 0.6% difference give them 0% percent of our rights as opposed to say, 99.4% of our rights? At the very least, why do we not extend them the right simply to be left alone?
Most animals stay away from human civilization.
Wisely so, since they are well aware that the human animal is the most dangerous predator on the planet.
Occasionally, a bear or mountain lion will wander into a city and kill domesticated animals, in which case, they can either be killed or captured and returned to the wild.
Do cows, pigs, and chickens initiate force on human beings, or just mind their own business? They just mind their own business. Does that stop us from killing them? No.
Human rights are only relevant within human society, yes. Wolf societies could very well have rights too, but they would only apply to wolves and the interaction between them. Animals are not a part of our society, and thus the rights of humans within human society are not extended to them.
Which just demonstrates that what we define as human rights has nothing to do with nature or natural law. You, a human being, claim that animals have no rights. Somebody else, another human being, may come along and claim they do. In any case, the ensuing discussion will have nothing to do with "nature" or "natural law" and everything to do with the subjective values and belief systems of different human beings. The refusal to extend the right to be left alone, as a minimum, to animals who leave us alone is patently an example of human self-interest leading to a double standard, not of any universal, objective morality.
Animals are not a part of our society, and thus the rights of humans within human society are not extended to them.
So if a human being decides to quit human society and lives wild in the forest, leaving others alone, a member of human society can come along and shoot him dead with impunity?
The very fact that we can decide when and to whom or what to "extend" rights demonstrates, once again, that rights are the product of social negotiation, not of natural law--which is precisely what people like phi have been arguing against your protestations.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
EchoVortex said:
Now, animals also have these options. However, since they lack the ability to reason or communicate with us, it is hard for them to accept such an agreement, though they could be trained to not initiate force, as seen in the case of pets.
So the reason they are not extended rights is because they can't reason or communicate with us?
More like the fact that they are not a part of our society.
Quote:
That means if I come across a mentally retarded beggar kid in Calcutta who possesses neither reason nor language, I can make shish kabobs out of him? Obviously that criterion doesn't work.
Cute, but no. He's still part of human society.
Quote:
Maybe you're trying to say that rights only extend to homo sapiens.
No, they only extend to those within society. Those outside of society are not expected to play by its rules, and thus rights do not apply to them.
Quote:
The problem there is that, for example, chimpanzees share 99.4% of the same genetic code with human beings. Why does that 0.6% difference give them 0% percent of our rights as opposed to say, 99.4% of our rights? At the very least, why do we not extend them the right simply to be left alone?
Their rights are for other chimpanzees to respect within their own society. I do, however, consider it at least unnerving that we go into their society and kidnap them for scientific testing.
Quote:
Occasionally, a bear or mountain lion will wander into a city and kill domesticated animals, in which case, they can either be killed or captured and returned to the wild.
Do cows, pigs, and chickens initiate force on human beings, or just mind their own business? They just mind their own business. Does that stop us from killing them? No.
Quite correct. I'm not quite sure how to respond to this, as I myself have personally struggled with the ethics of eating meat. If anyone else has a response to this, I'd love to hear it.
Quote:
Human rights are only relevant within human society, yes. Wolf societies could very well have rights too, but they would only apply to wolves and the interaction between them. Animals are not a part of our society, and thus the rights of humans within human society are not extended to them.
Which just demonstrates that what we define as human rights has nothing to do with nature or natural law. You, a human being, claim that animals have no rights.
I have said no such thing.
Quote:
In any case, the ensuing discussion will have nothing to do with "nature" or "natural law" and everything to do with the subjective values and belief systems of different human beings.
No, it has to do with the nature of society and our existence.
Quote:
The refusal to extend the right to be left alone, as a minimum, to animals who leave us alone is patently an example of human self-interest leading to a double standard, not of any universal, objective morality.
It is not a double-standard because as I have said repeatedly said, rights are only relevant within society. For those that are not a part of society, human or animal, rights have no meaning.
Quote:
Animals are not a part of our society, and thus the rights of humans within human society are not extended to them.
So if a human being decides to quit human society and lives wild in the forest, leaving others alone, a member of human society can come along and shoot him dead with impunity?
Sure, just as he might do to that person. In the absence of society, nothing is forbidden. However, you could simply agree not to initiate force against one another, and then form your own miniature "society."
Quote:
The very fact that we can decide when and to whom or what to "extend" rights demonstrates, once again, that rights are the product of social negotiation, not of natural law--which is precisely what people like phi have been arguing against your protestations.
Ah, but natural law deals with the nature of these social negotiations and follows them to their logical conclusion. If people must agree to not initiate force against one another in order to survive, then it follows that this should be upheld consistently.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2726404 - 05/25/04 03:34 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I gotta say, looking at the words in the constitution, it looks pretty bad.
Pretty bad? Pretty bad shit. The words are clear. Those programs are not for the feds no matter what the courts said. You like them because you agree with them. The words are not ambiguous at all.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
|
What makes something objective? How can we tell?
When I say "there can be no perpetual motion machine", I am making a statement obout objective, material reality - something which is fundamentally beyond our perception and out of our grasp, but which we all agree exists.
I say that there are no perpetual motion machines because 1) I'd know one if I saw it, and 2) to the best of my knowlege, no one has ever seen one, despite occasional claims to the contrary.
If we say "natural rights exist", talking again about objective reality, how could we tell? How could we disprove or prove the statement, based on observation? What things should I look for, now, today, in the world, to find a natural right?
Quote:
To say there are objective rights and wrongs is a fallacy in itself as those concepts are intangible; they don't even exist in the physical realm.
Sounds right to me...
Quote:
Universal rights and wrongs are basically in the same boat. 'Universal' has the tendency to be all-encompassing. Even in our limited knowledge of our corner in time, and our corner of the world we can still find exceptions to popular notions of right and wrong. If anyone can find an example of right and wrong that no one can find an example of exception, I'll be impressed. But then again proving such a thing is impossible as it would require knowledge of everything... Universal knowledge if you will, and if someone has that: Welcome God!
I agree that it is impossible to prove that a particular notion of right and wrong is universal; however, it doesn't matter. It's also imposible to prove that there are no perpetual motions machines; we only believe it because it hasn't yet been disproven, and not for lack of trying.
However, I think that the statement "the notion that initiation of force by a human against another human is wrong is universal" is both 1)disproven and 2) intrinsically problematic.
The first has been covered earlier in this thread and elsewhere extensively; if anyone believes that everyone agrees that initiation of force is wrong, just let me know...
For the second - what constitutes initiation of force against another human? Does catching a fish - thus preventing another from catching that fish - constitute an initiation of force? If too many people catch too many fish, it gets harder and harder to catch fish - a situation that we're in today. How about air or water pollution? How about selling enough of a particular currency to cause its exchange rate to tumble? Printing counterfeit currency? Selling super-hot coffee without a warning label? Writing a piece of software that is very similar to a comercial application and giving it away for donations? Downloading copyrighted music? Patenting genes? Breaking a patent? Cutting across a neighbors lawn (in foot) to save 5 minutes without asking? Begging at the gas station? Misrepresenting the facts to get a job, or get a handout?
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
|
Article 3, section 2: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution..."
This is not a case of violating the intentions of the founding fathers, or anything like it: Some agreed with your interpretion of the constitution (ie. Thomas Jefferson), some figured otherwise.
Notice that the federal reserve was established in 1791, and the offending decision was made in 1819. "Activist judges" are a tradition nearly as old as the constitution itself.
The constitution is not the holy and inviolate foundation of our law. Our legal system is based on the precident of legal cases going back before the constitution, as well as the constitution itself. Even the first judicial decisions under the Constitution rested on the precidents set by earlier cases, and earlier legal documents.
This is the way it's done - you have a strong belief about what should be, but this is what is. Most of the legal profession disagrees with your interpretation, not based on the words of the constitution, but based on the precident of case law.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2726838 - 05/25/04 08:22 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
phi1618 said:
To expand on a point I just made, what of equality of birth? If one person is born into poverty, has poor nutrition and little education in his young life, why shouldn't the state act to remedy the situation?
Why should the government act to 'remedy' the situation? Why should the circumstances of one man's birth be used as the claim upon the life of another?
Quote:
Our government gives representation to those who vote - 1 man, 1 vote - not 1 dollar, 1 vote.
Actually you are mistaken, one man, one vote does not equate to representation for everyone who votes. Those who vote for the winning candidate are more likely to be represented in the legislature or executive, but even that is not assured. We still have a winner takes all system, I can assure you that I am not represented in the Congress. I have even sent letters to my so-called 'representatives' only to have responses telling me why they would not champion my opinion.
Quote:
You are an optimist, and that is comendable.
I am a realist, there ARE renewable resources economic activity is not a zero sum game.
Quote:
Is the initation of force acceptable if it is percieved to be imperitive for survival?
If a man points a gun at me and I perceive that he intends to kill me I have no reservations about taking action before I am unable to. Likewise if an innocent thrid party is in danger.
Quote:
For example, I met an Israeli man... the Israeli people absolutely need their own nation to survive...
He is mistaken.
Quote:
And, certainly, there have been countless other examples of this in history and literature, of violence done for survival.
So? If your neighbor is a thief and a rapist, does that justify you becoming a thief and a rapist?
Quote:
There can be no initiation of force; Every force is part of an unbroken chain or web of forces; no force has a origen or a terminus.
You are conflating all actions in the universe with a discussion of politics. Keep in mind that in the context of politics, the initiation of force others refer to is that of person against person in order to acheive political or social goals, not force exerted by a person against inanimate objects or non-human animals, not force required to defend oneself from an attacker. Try not to cloud up the waters too much, straw men don't belong in the pool... they bring in debris and they can't swim.
--------------------
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.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: other boards? [Re: phi1618]
#2726862 - 05/25/04 08:35 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
phi1618 said:
Notice that the federal reserve was established in 1791,
No it wasn't, "The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. Congress created the Federal Reserve through a law passed in 1913..." from The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis web site.
Quote:
... and the offending decision was made in 1819. "Activist judges" are a tradition nearly as old as the constitution itself.
So? Does that make it right?
Quote:
The constitution is not the holy and inviolate foundation of our law.
The Constitution is the charter of the federal government, setting it up as an agent of the states with certain delimited powers and responsibilities. That this charter has been ignored, broken and blatantly misinterpreted to foist political agendas and accumulate power is not an argument for the constitutionality of the actions of those in power.
--------------------
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.
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Evolving]
#2726918 - 05/25/04 08:57 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
No it wasn't, "The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. Congress created the Federal Reserve through a law passed in 1913..."
You're right. I didn't understand the distinction of the federal reserve system from simply gov't run banking.
The first national (run by the federal gov't) bank was established in 1791, over the protestations of the Sec. of State Thomas Jefferson, who claimed it was outside the powers allowed the federal gov't in the constitution.
Quote:
The Constitution is the charter of the federal government, setting it up as an agent of the states with certain delimited powers and responsibilities. That this charter has been ignored, broken and blatantly misinterpreted to foist political agendas and accumulate power is not an argument for the constitutionality of the actions of those in power.
My point is that 1) the government is more than just the constitution; lawyers use case law and president in addition to legislative and constitutional law, and 2) the courts decide what the role of the constitution is.
I agree w/ alot of your points, ie. economic activity is not a zero-sum game, and some resources are renewable if used properly. However, proper use of resources can require collective controll, such as w/ fish and pollution.
As far as what constitutes an initiation of force; I don't think the concept can accurately guide us to any conclusion in the majority of real cases.
So, you have an idea of how things should be. How should we reach that state of affairs?
For example, what should be done w/ the social security system? I think the benefits payed out need to be scaled back significantly; perhaps the program could even be phased out. But, I don't think we can simply eliminate it - plenty of people depend on social security for their retirement, and won't be able to support themselves on their savings alone.
Really, I guess this belongs in a seperate thread - but my basic quesiton here is, how should we achieve the minimal, Jeffersonian government you propose?
Let me be clear, that if there was a practical way of achieving it, that would not cause undue suffering for myself or other Americans, I wouldn't oppose a minimal government. I just don't think there is a preexisting ideal government - we have to build on what exists.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
More like the fact that they are not a part of our society.
Surely the state of the natural world is a major factor underlying all human societies? What do you consider "society"? The people at the mall?
Those outside of society are not expected to play by its rules, and thus rights do not apply to them.
So anything outside the mall is fair game? What about the rights of our children to a world where all the animals havn't been wiped out?
Their rights are for other chimpanzees to respect within their own society
But chimpanzee society isn't the problem. The chimps "rights" have worked fine for millions of years. It's human society that is wiping them out.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Xlea321]
#2727131 - 05/25/04 10:05 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said:
More like the fact that they are not a part of our society.
Surely the state of the natural world is a major factor underlying all human societies?
Sure. All societies are formed by a natural need for humans to get along.
Quote:
What do you consider "society"? The people at the mall?
Society is when humans form a community where they agree not to initiate force against one another.
Quote:
Those outside of society are not expected to play by its rules, and thus rights do not apply to them.
So anything outside the mall is fair game? What about the rights of our children to a world where all the animals havn't been wiped out?
That is a responsibility we have to our children, but it is not a right.
Quote:
Their rights are for other chimpanzees to respect within their own society
But chimpanzee society isn't the problem. The chimps "rights" have worked fine for millions of years. It's human society that is wiping them out.
And what does that have to do with rights?
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
|
More like the fact that they are not a part of our society.
Then why bring up the issue of language and reason in the first place?
In any event, drawing the line at "our society" is a purely arbitrary function of anthropocentric bias.
No, they only extend to those within society. Those outside of society are not expected to play by its rules, and thus rights do not apply to them.
And this justifies pre-emptively killing them because they might violate your own rights? Actually you're far, far more likely to be the victim of force or fraud by another human being than by an animal. You could just as easily argue that it's okay to curtail the liberties of other human beings because they might take advantage of those liberties to violate your own. But according to your premises, human beings are innocent until proven guilty, animals are guilty by definition.
Their rights are for other chimpanzees to respect within their own society. I do, however, consider it at least unnerving that we go into their society and kidnap them for scientific testing.
Apparently not unnerving enough to extend them the right NOT to be kidnapped and vivisected.
I have said no such thing.
You have said that animals have no rights vis-a-vis human beings. We can leave it to chimpanzees to decide their social rules among themselves. The question is what rights we choose to extend to them. If I'm not mistaken, you are saying that we extend them none because they are not a part of our society.
No, it has to do with the nature of society and our existence.
The nature of society and existence? Can that statement be any more vague? As somebody who has studied some anthropology, surely you are aware that different societies throughout history have often had wildly varying natures. There have been billions of people throughout history who believed that their own personal survival, salvation, happiness, whatever, had nothing to do with their own liberty as individuals per se.
It is not a double-standard because as I have said repeatedly said, rights are only relevant within society. For those that are not a part of society, human or animal, rights have no meaning.
They certainly have meaning for those, animal or human, who unwillingly come in contact with an alien society, one which refuses to extend their lives any consideration for the utterly arbitrary reason that they are not a part of that alien society. If animals had the option to live on a planet apart from human beings, you might have a point. As it is, we drag them into a world of our creation and then add insult to injury by refusing to give them any recognition within that world.
Sure, just as he might do to that person. In the absence of society, nothing is forbidden. However, you could simply agree not to initiate force against one another, and then form your own miniature "society.
He's just minding his own business. He wants nothing to do with their society. He has no desire to kill them, just to be left alone. By coming in contact with him, they have forced him unwillingly into their sphere of action. That's precisely my point: animals are unwillingly drawn into our sphere of action. They are given no choice to accept or reject this--they are simply used as means for human ends, with no more questions asked.
Ah, but natural law deals with the nature of these social negotiations and follows them to their logical conclusion. If people must agree to not initiate force against one another in order to survive, then it follows that this should be upheld consistently.
Once again, you make appeals to the "nature" of social negotiations as if there were some pre-established consensus as to what this is. And no, the absence of initiation of force does not necessarily promote survival: quite the contrary, there are occasions when the the individual must initiate force in various forms on others to ensure his own survival. Survival per se has nothing to do with rights--it has to with struggle, with "nature, red in tooth and claw." This is the only "law" that nature itself provides us with. Everything else is a creation of the human mind designed to soften this unpalatable reality. That doesn't mean that these things are undesirable--simply that they have nothing to do with nature.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
I'll get to the specific points in that post later when I have more time, but for now I'd just like to point out that the absence of rights does not mean anything goes. An animal does not have a right to not be killed for no reason, but that does not mean it is a good thing to do. It is cruel to do so, and does not accomplish anything, but that does not mean it is a violation of its rights.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
|
but for now I'd just like to point out that the absence of rights does not mean anything goes.
Of course it does.
Say there's a man who is torturing a wild animal (i.e., not domesticated, doesn't belong to anyone). He's there, in a field, he's got the animal tied up. He is administering electrical shocks to the animal. Slicing its eyes with a razor blade. Slowly disembowling it while administering stimulants to keep the animal fully conscious during its torture.
According to your way of thinking, there is nothing that the police can do to stop him. He has rights, the animal doesn't. You cannot initiate force upon somebody who is initiating force upon a being that is not recgonized as having the right to be protected from such force. All you can do, I suppose, is stand there and shout at him "You bad man! You cruel man! You're a meany!"
Of course, in a civilized, sensible society the cops would just forcibly stop the maniac. But the arid and divorced-from-reality world of natural rights theory has no time for civilization, sensibility, or common sense: only for a set of arbitrary rules created by a group of people deluded enough to believe that they, and they alone, have a clear insight into the nature of things.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Ancalagon]
#2728175 - 05/25/04 02:54 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
the initiation of force is wrong, regardless of a specific culture's view.
Id be so happy to see you prove this as an absolute undeniable fact, like e=mc2. I wont hold my breath while i wait tho!! (as if e=mc2 is really a fact anyway )
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
No, they do not exist independently of man, nor did I say they did. They exist independently of man's subjective opinions, but they require humans in order to be relevant to humans.
Oh really?
Quote:
GazzBut said:
How can a concept such as natural rights exist outside the minds of men? Where does a concept live if it has existence outside of our minds?
You said: "I would think the name would be self-explanatory. They exist in nature."
Please at least try and be consistent!!
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
An animal does not have a right to not be killed for no reason,
What does the "no good reason" have to do with anything? If they have no rights then why would you need a "good reason"?
Does this apply to human beings? Was there a "good reason" to kill Hitler? And if so, was this a violation of his "rights"?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2730710 - 05/26/04 12:29 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Quote:
No, they do not exist independently of man, nor did I say they did. They exist independently of man's subjective opinions, but they require humans in order to be relevant to humans.
Oh really?
Quote:
GazzBut said:
How can a concept such as natural rights exist outside the minds of men? Where does a concept live if it has existence outside of our minds?
You said: "I would think the name would be self-explanatory. They exist in nature."
Please at least try and be consistent!!
I am being consistent. You just refuse to see it. The nature of man's existence is still nature.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Echovortex, I concede that you make a valid point, but I think it's not the point you intended to make. Rather than disproving natural rights, you instead make a strong and convincing case for animals having natural rights as well. If no one can debunk this, I may have to consider going vegan(which really sucks, because I love meat).
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
So lets clarify how you view natural rights as im not too sure anymore!!
Do you seem them an objective truth that applies to all people at all times which will never be subject to change?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Evolving]
#2731197 - 05/26/04 06:18 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Then there is no compelling moral reason for those unaffected by such things to help the helpless, comfort or treat the ill, feed the hungry, house the homeless, arrest thieves and robbers, condemn rapists, jail murderers, stop racists from aggressively creating a pure society (as long as you are part of the favored race) and wars of aggression need no justification other than might makes right.
I am saying morality and concepts of right and wrong are subjective not non existent.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2731461 - 05/26/04 08:25 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
So lets clarify how you view natural rights as im not too sure anymore!!
Do you seem them an objective truth that applies to all people at all times which will never be subject to change?
Close. It applies to all people(and possibly animals--I'll have to give that one some more thought) within the context of society. In isolation, rights are null and void.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
Ok. What exactly are the natural rights you recognise?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2731553 - 05/26/04 09:13 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Well, I think they were best summarized by John Locke: "Life, Liberty, and Property."
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
Ok, So if the rights are truly objective Locke merely discovered them. They had been hidden, but always existed prior to his discovery?
Doesnt it make more sense to say that Locke gave it some thought and his subjective opinion, based on this serious cogitation, was that people deserve a right to life, liberty and happiness?
Obviously, Locke's formulation has had a significant impact on the world today. It forms an important part of the declaration of independence "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This raises an interesting point, rights are normally bestowed by some form of authority, in this case the christian god. Who bestows these rights upon us in your opinion?
And what of other societies and cultures concepts of natural rights? Are we to assume that they all got it wrong and it was only Locke who discovered the "one true" version of natural rights? If so you are starting to sound like a fundamental christian!!
Take the native americans, im not sure of their exact idea of natural rights but im pretty sure it is not completely in line with Locke's idea. In fact I would imagine they have a concept of natural obligations i.e show respect to mother nature and all the creatures of earth of which they are a part. So are you telling me their subjective version of natural rights and obligations is wrong?
It seems to me what you are talking about is one possible reality tunnel out of a multitude of different tunnels. How can a reality tunnel be anything other than subjective?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Well, I think they were best summarized by John Locke: "Life, Liberty, and Property."
How do these rights mesh with those of our descendents? Or do these rights only apply for people alive now?
Say if I'm a good old free market libertarian and I want to buy up a few hundred acres of rainforest and build an apartment complex there, is that my right to "liberty and property"? Even tho it will affect the "rights" of those who come after me? Or are my rights more important simply because I'm alive right now?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2731639 - 05/26/04 09:54 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Ok, So if the rights are truly objective Locke merely discovered them. They had been hidden, but always existed prior to his discovery?
Not exactly. He merely articulated that which all societies had recognized to some degree.
Quote:
Doesnt it make more sense to say that Locke gave it some thought and his subjective opinion, based on this serious cogitation, was that people deserve a right to life, liberty and happiness?
He based it on logic, the main tool of philosophers. If it was entirely subjective, then there could be no debating it, as it would simply be one person's opinion versus another, like a Kings fan versus a Lakers fan. However, based on some reasonable assumptions, he followed them to their logical conclusion.
Quote:
Obviously, Locke's formulation has had a significant impact on the world today. It forms an important part of the declaration of independence "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This raises an interesting point, rights are normally bestowed by some form of authority, in this case the christian god. Who bestows these rights upon us in your opinion?
Unlike Locke, I do not believe in some divine creator. Our rights are inherent in the way society functions. We get along by not interfering with other people's lives.
Quote:
And what of other societies and cultures concepts of natural rights? Are we to assume that they all got it wrong and it was only Locke who discovered the "one true" version of natural rights? If so you are starting to sound like a fundamental christian!!
All societies have recognized them to some extent, just not their full extent. For example, no society allows people to steal whenever they feel like it. They may allow certain forms of theft, such as taxation, but they recognize on a fundamental level that their society cannot function if theft is permitted by all people. Often when they make exceptions like this, it is for certain people or groups of people. The state is allowed to steal, but its citizens are not. When looking at natural rights, we can merely look at the assumptions about initiation of force which all societies have recognized, and combine them with the assumption that all men are created equal, and thus apply an equal standard to all.
Quote:
Take the native americans, im not sure of their exact idea of natural rights but im pretty sure it is not completely in line with Locke's idea. In fact I would imagine they have a concept of natural obligations i.e show respect to mother nature and all the creatures of earth of which they are a part. So are you telling me their subjective version of natural rights and obligations is wrong?
There is definitely something to their idea of respect for mother nature. Natural rights are not inconsistent with natural obligations. I also think that the Native American ideas about land ownership are quite consistent with those of Henry George and other geolibertarians.
Quote:
It seems to me what you are talking about is one possible reality tunnel out of a multitude of different tunnels. How can a reality tunnel be anything other than subjective?
Of course we as individuals can only experience the subjective. However, man has the ability to reason, and reason and logic have become the closest thing to objectivity that we have. They have become the standard to which all ideas are held. Now, perhaps there are limitations to reason and logic, but insofar as they are recognized as valid, we can have some standard of objectivity.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Xlea321]
#2731645 - 05/26/04 09:56 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said:
Well, I think they were best summarized by John Locke: "Life, Liberty, and Property."
How do these rights mesh with those of our descendents? Or do these rights only apply for people alive now?
Say if I'm a good old free market libertarian and I want to buy up a few hundred acres of rainforest and build an apartment complex there, is that my right to "liberty and property"? Even tho it will affect the "rights" of those who come after me? Or are my rights more important simply because I'm alive right now?
I do think there is something to be said for the rights of future generations. Land, as I have said before, is common property, to which all people have equal right.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Land, as I have said before, is common property, to which all people have equal right.
Equal right in what way? According to how much money you have?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Xlea321]
#2731676 - 05/26/04 10:05 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said:
Land, as I have said before, is common property, to which all people have equal right.
Equal right in what way? According to how much money you have?
Equal right in that it is there for all to share. Those that use it privately must pay a fee to society(in the form of a land value tax) for its use.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
Echovortex, I concede that you make a valid point, but I think it's not the point you intended to make. Rather than disproving natural rights, you instead make a strong and convincing case for animals having natural rights as well. If no one can debunk this, I may have to consider going vegan(which really sucks, because I love meat).
I take my hat off to you. You demonstrate, yet again, a flexibility of thinking that is quite rare on this board.
That said, however, I'm afraid I still take issue with the idea of a definition of rights that claims to be transhistorical--indeed, one that is eternal and transcendental. I accept the need for a framework of rights, but it must be one that is open to negotiation and revision. A few generations ago in the West, the very idea of rights for animals would have been deemed so absurd as to suggest insanity on the part of anybody arguing for them. I can't say I blame people of past generations for thinking that way because for most of human history a refusal to use animals for food and labor would have meant starvation. Even today, such a refusal would lead to widespread economic chaos and slow medical research to a fraction of its current pace. These are the ethical gray areas that people in the real world have to deal with. The problem with most moralizing philosophies is that they tend to deny the existence of these gray areas and to focus monomaniacally on some overarching principle (to the exclusion of other, competing principles) that is somehow going to spare us the trouble of thinking in context.
I also object to the oxymoron "natural rights"--this is a rhetorical strategy whose purpose is to shut off debate by appealing to the misconception that "natural=good." There is nothing even approximating rights in nature--nature operates on the principle of life feeding on life, which inevitably means murder, theft, and deception.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
He based it on logic, the main tool of philosophers.
In that case can you give me a run down of the logical steps that lead to the conclusion we posess incontrevertible natural rights?
Quote:
If it was entirely subjective, then there could be no debating it
Surely if something is based on subjective opinion then you can debate it all day. If something is truly logical then there is alot less room for debate, Wouldnt you agree?
Quote:
Our rights are inherent in the way society functions.
Only if a society chooses to recognise these rights. Life,liberty and happiness are noble goals to work towards but they are only an expectation, a goal (one of many) a society can choose to work towards in my opinion.
My main point of contention is that once people see this as a natural truth like the law of gravity and a whole philosophy springs from it, those who espouse that philosophy become fairly rigid in their thinking. As I said earlier it is simply one reality tunnel out of many.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: GazzBut]
#2736539 - 05/27/04 11:46 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Quote:
He based it on logic, the main tool of philosophers.
In that case can you give me a run down of the logical steps that lead to the conclusion we posess incontrevertible natural rights?
Pinky has done this a number of times, and I don't feel like devoting the amount of time he has, especially when he's gone through it already, so I'll try to summarize. A person in isolation can act on any of their abilities. Rights are a null concept in this context. When people come in contact with one another, some of their abilities can harm others. So they can either run away, try to kill everyone else, or try to get along. If they run away, there are no reproductive opportunities, and they still run the risk of running into more people. If they try to kill the others, they run the very real risk of getting killed themselves. So the third option is the best of the three. In order to get along, they must agree not to harm one another. Harming another person involves initiation of force against them. Thus, we see that society requires that people refrain from intiation of force. Now, I'm not sure what logical step Locke makes right here, because I personally have not read his works, but for me, Kant seems to provide a sensible way of determining ethics. If it is wrong to initiate force against another, then it is wrong absolutely, even if it's to try and help other people. Thus we determine that people have a right to be free from initiation of force. If someone does initiate force against them, it would follow logically that they have a right to defend themselves. Thus we see the right to life and liberty. Now, you may remember mushmaster's example about stripping a person naked and taking everything from them. Since to do this would violate their right to life, we can determine that people have a right to property. I'm not sure I'm doing the best job of explaining this. I'll try to find the thread where pinky did a better job of doing so.
Quote:
Quote:
If it was entirely subjective, then there could be no debating it
Surely if something is based on subjective opinion then you can debate it all day. If something is truly logical then there is alot less room for debate, Wouldnt you agree?
Not quite. Logic is like a language. It is an agreed-upon means of arriving at a conclusion. If something were completely subjective, there would be no debate, only argument and contradiction.
Quote:
Quote:
Our rights are inherent in the way society functions.
Only if a society chooses to recognise these rights. Life,liberty and happiness are noble goals to work towards but they are only an expectation, a goal (one of many) a society can choose to work towards in my opinion.
It has been shown here many times that society requires that people agree not to initiate force against each other in order to function. Now, all societies make exceptions for certain people, but if we assume that all men are created equal, we cannot make such exceptions.
Quote:
My main point of contention is that once people see this as a natural truth like the law of gravity and a whole philosophy springs from it, those who espouse that philosophy become fairly rigid in their thinking. As I said earlier it is simply one reality tunnel out of many.
Perhaps, but I have yet to see a different "reality tunnel" that makes more sense.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Tao
Village Genius
Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
A person in isolation can act on any of their abilities. Rights are a null concept in this context. When people come in contact with one another, some of their abilities can harm others. So they can either run away, try to kill everyone else, or try to get along. If they run away, there are no reproductive opportunities, and they still run the risk of running into more people. If they try to kill the others, they run the very real risk of getting killed themselves. So the third option is the best of the three. In order to get along, they must agree not to harm one another.
Doesn't Hobbes use this same story about human nature and logic to argue for the use of a Leviathan--practically the complete opposite of libertarianism and natural rights?
And again, I do not believe that is an accurate reading of Kant (in the other part of the post). One of the FLAWS of Kant's philosophy is that one can gerrymander universal maxims to suit themselves.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: other boards? [Re: Tao]
#2737558 - 05/27/04 04:01 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TaoTeChing said:
Quote:
A person in isolation can act on any of their abilities. Rights are a null concept in this context. When people come in contact with one another, some of their abilities can harm others. So they can either run away, try to kill everyone else, or try to get along. If they run away, there are no reproductive opportunities, and they still run the risk of running into more people. If they try to kill the others, they run the very real risk of getting killed themselves. So the third option is the best of the three. In order to get along, they must agree not to harm one another.
Doesn't Hobbes use this same story about human nature and logic to argue for the use of a Leviathan--practically the complete opposite of libertarianism and natural rights?
Hobbes seems to assume that people will not willingly get along, and that therefore the state must have a monopoly on force in order to keep everyone else in line. Based on what I've observed of human nature, I would consider this a false assumption.
Quote:
And again, I do not believe that is an accurate reading of Kant (in the other part of the post). One of the FLAWS of Kant's philosophy is that one can gerrymander universal maxims to suit themselves.
It has been a while since I have taken a philosophy class, so perhaps I'm a little rusty, but could you explain this second point a little further? The usefullness of universal maxims seems pretty clear to me.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Tao
Village Genius
Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 8 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
Based on what I've observed of human nature, I would consider this a false assumption.
while some would look at the international order and come to the opposite conclusion.
Quote:
It has been a while since I have taken a philosophy class, so perhaps I'm a little rusty, but could you explain this second point a little further?
Kant's universal maxims are not just "lying is wrong" or "intiating force is wrong". they derive from the categorical imperative "A moral agent must live by maxims which he/she could will to be universal law". he says this categorical imperative is binding upon on every moral agent simply by virtue of their being moral agents (the enormous flaw in Kant's philosophy that even neo-Kantians abandon). The problem is that these maxims can be tailored to be something like "only those who come from families earning X dollars will be entitled to assistance" or in more absurd cases "Only people named Richard Jefferson will be allowed to steal from others". If that maxim were universalized, there wouldnt be a contradiction in will, practice or conception. The most common misinterpretation of Kant is that one comes up with a universal maxim and imagines whether the world would be favorable or unfavorable if it were adopted. This is not its purpose, its purpose is to see whether it would pass the contradiction test.
However, having said that, I do think Kant would be against welfare because he derives from his categorical imperative that one should 'never treat and agent as a means to an end, for they are an end in themselves'.
The problem however IMO, is that Kant's categorical imperative is neither categorical nor imperatively binding, leaving others little desire to adopt the practice if others are unwilling to as well.
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
|
Hobbes seems to assume that people will not willingly get along, and that therefore the state must have a monopoly on force in order to keep everyone else in line. Based on what I've observed of human nature, I would consider this a false assumption.
The answer is somewhere in the middle.
Your observations of what you call human nature are in fact observations of the behavior of people living in a specific type of society: namely one where the state already holds a monopoly over the legitimate use force, and one which is economically and militarily more powerful than any other country in the world. Peace and prosperity give people enough feeling of security to begin thinking about the rights of others--at all other times, the individual's first priority is personal survival, and if that means ignoring others' rights, so be it. That doesn't necessarily mean killing everybody in sight (which would likely get oneself killed even in the absence of a state), but it very often does mean fraud, theft, and deception in various forms. When everything is going fine, people can be expected to get along. Why shouldn't they? Why create unnecessary problems? When conflicts of interest arise, however (and they arise millions of times a day, even in well-off societies) the parties to those disputes often cannot be counted on to resolve the conflict in a just and impartial manner without mediation.
A respect for others' rights and a desire truly to get along (as opposed to just pretending to get along while still angling for an unfair share of the pie) are the luxuries of societies whose basic needs have already been fulfilled. Now, if human nature itself were what you say it is, the countless atrocities seen throughout human history would never have happened. Do I need to list some of them for you?
The decision to allow the state a monopoly over the legitimate use of force is the product of millenia of human history. For much of that time, there was no concept of impartial justice, only the concept of retribution. You harm me, I harm you. You kill me, my family kills you. My family kills you, your family kills mine. Your family kills mine, my clan declares war on your clan.
These never-ending spirals of retribution very often destroyed entire communities. We see a similar logic at work in the Middle East today. At some point, though, human beings realized that a concept of justice was preferable to a concept of retribution--but justice is only possible when there is one, AND ONLY ONE, agent that has the legitimacy and authority to decide what is just, and the legitimacy and the authority to carry out the just punishment. For a better understanding of this, take a look at Rene Girard's book Violence and the Sacred.
The modern state does not give certain individuals the right to initiate force upon others--it simply gives the state itself a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Those who argue that the state shouldn't have rights not given to individuals themselves (because it is inconsistent with the idea of equal rights for all) should consider the following questions:
Should individuals have the right to possess nuclear weapons?
Or should the state NOT have that right?
Should individuals have the right to arrest, try, and punish suspected criminals?
Or shoud the state NOT have that right?
Should individuals have the right to sign treaties on behalf of their nations with foreign powers?
Or should the state NOT have that right?
Should individuals have the right to make up their own traffic and aviation laws?
Or should the state NOT have that right?
Should individuals be allowed to decide what is environmenally destructive and what is not, thereby being free to do whatever they please?
Or should the state NOT have that right?
The state, in order to function as the guarantor of indviduals' rights, has to have legitimate powers that go beyond those of individuals. This is obvious and logically consistent. The state is a necessary evil. That evil is mediated to the extent that the state is an instrument of the will of as large a cross-section of society as is reasonably possible. If human beings were ever to evolve to the point where they could resolve their conflicts of interest consistently in a non-violent, just, and equitable manner, both domestically and internationally, there would be no need for a state. But let's not confuse OUGHT with IS: that is the fundamental mistake of every disastrous political experiment ever undertaken.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
It seems to me the only logic I can see is that people generally get along better without violence. This doesnt lead to the conclusion that humans posess an inalienable right to life, liberty and happiness.
Quote:
If it is wrong to initiate force against another, then it is wrong absolutely, even if it's to try and help other people.
Well you obviously disagree with Pinky on this point as he thinks the US were well within their rights to initiate force against Iraq to help the Iraqi's.
Quote:
Now, you may remember mushmaster's example about stripping a person naked and taking everything from them. Since to do this would violate their right to life, we can determine that people have a right to property.
surely stripping a person naked would violate their right to not be embarassed? The logical conclusion is not that all people posess a right to property but that some people demand a right to property. We are not talking about inalienable rights we are talking about flexible rules.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
Great post!
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 all )
PotSmokinHippie
daussaulit
DigitalDuality
ZeroRadius