Well, *that* was productive...Follow

I don't usually like the quote-to-quote thing, but I'll bite. This is interesting.



Not sure what you mean by that, but yes, people depend on their governments. I totally do not argue with that point.



Still not sure what you mean here, but I'll run through my logic again in case I wasn't clear;

Conceptual freedom comes in two variants. Let's say I'm Leonardo da Vinci, and a very rich person from Florence comes to me and offers to pay for my food and housing. He will support me financially for the rest of my life. In a sense, strictly speaking in your sense, this is liberating; it means I no longer have to work to support myself. I can focus on my intellectual pursuits to the best of my considerable mental capacity. But from another perspective, I'm not free at all. I rely entirely on this rich Florentine for my financial support, which he can withdraw at any moment should I displease or insult him - in fact, he can withdraw it for no reason at all, and I have no say in the matter. The very fact that I depend on him for my continued existence imposes limitations on my actions, and therefore my freedom. I am free of responsibility, but simultaneously not free in action.

Now, another example. Pretend I'm a lowly subsistence farmer, living in a patch of land that is owned by no country. I am the only inhabitant of this patch of land. It's a state of literal anarchy; there are no laws on my behaviour except those I impose on myself. In a sense, I'm totally free; I have no obligation to no government. But because it's just me, I have to work all day farming the land so that I have enough food to keep on living. While I'm free in action, I'm personally responsible for my continued existence, and therefore not entirely free; I have no free time to be Leonardo or invent the wheel if I'm farming all day.

My personal conclusion when I thought this through initially is that true freedom is impossible, unless you're Superman. The second form is impractical survivalist bullsh*t which doesn't apply to anyone in the urban population, and the first form isn't really being free, it's indentured servitude. Now I think what you're saying here is that the process of building a civilisation involves a fundamental and systematic removal of freedoms in exchange for responsibilities, and this I agree with. What I think you haven't considered is that the situation you described - namely Leonardo's situation above - you defined as being "freed", and I disagree with that on the basis that it isn't really freedom. And if I'm reading you right, you said that same thing just then, which is self-contradictory. So like I said, I'm not sure I read you right.



That's an arguable position, but again, I think you're working against yourself here. If I have no fundamental rights other than what my government sees fit to grant me, I have no fundamental rights. I don't actually have any rights at all. My government could take them away at any point by simply deciding that I no longer have that right, which defeats the purpose of their existence. I mean, I'll quote you;



Now, unless I'm reading you incorrectly, your response above is actually a refutation of this line right here. You're contradicting yourself. How can I expect food and housing from my government as a basic right if I have no basic rights other than what my government gives me? How can I lay claim to anything as my right if the government can change those rights simply on its whim?



Well, I don't know. Your own definition seems kinda inconsistent from what I've read here. I'd like a clearer definition on what my government can or can't do to my person other than "they can do whatever they want, and the founding principle behind human rights is bullsh*t." I'm sure Leonardo would want to draw a distinction between what he was allowed to do and what he was entitled to do.

Wow. I wrote all that, and then I stopped and thought "This must be what gbaji feels like all the time."


Edited, Apr 3rd 2009 11:44am by zepoodle

Ding ding ding ding!!! This is "it" in a nutshell.

If you don't "work" for your house and food, someone else has to. Who should that be? Can you call something a "right" in this context (or any context) if someone else has to be forced to provide it to you?



No, sucker. The value of labor is diminished such that if you don't work 50 times more than is required to generate basic necessities, you don't get them. You're moronically valuing labor by the standards of a system designed to enrich a tiny portion of the population through the labor of everyone else.

I can see how a moron would think "wellp, huhuhuhuh that's just what houses costses. You needs to work harderer so you can pay $1,000,000 for your $250,000 over 30 years. Ayupo. That's all its takeses is the hardowrken."

[quote=CoalHeart]Why would Obama call himself a gay-basher? He's for full civil unions but opposes same sex marriage. He's also a Christian. I often scratch my head whenever I see folks post what amounts to " Anyone that believes in God is retarded and anyone that opposes same sex marriage is a homophobe, that's why I voted for Obama."[quote]
Because half of what you want is a lot better than nothing of what you want, for yourself or other people.

In fact, even 5% of what you want is better than none of what you want, if that's your only two choices, and you'd better go after it wholeheartedly, or nothing changes for the better.

I'd assume that most people saying that (or something similar) assume that Obama is just saying he's opposed to gay marriage in order not to **** off the religious folks and that he'll stand out of the way and let the gay marriage movement continue on unobstructed. Kinda like how he said he was opposed to NAFTA when in front of a bunch of blue collar workers, but really wasn't, or how he said he was going to balance the budget when we all knew he really wasn't, or heck... any of a dozen promises Obama made during the campaign that pretty much everyone assumed were not going to be kept.

Obama ran on the "I'm for everyone/everything" platform, so I'm frankly not sure how anyone can be too surprised by any of this...



That really depends on the other 95% I think.

Yes

Quick response:

Pensive. The people who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and the US Constitutions held in their minds a meaning of "rights", which they wrote about and placed great weight upon. It is upon that meaning that "we the people" place value on the idea of rights today.


Regardless of what you today *think* the word right should mean, it is absolutely dishonest to call upon the emotional response generated by claiming someone is violating someone or some groups "rights", when the action in question does not violate the concept of rights as they were understood back when those founding documents were written. You can argue that those meanings are outdated, but most people form their automatic emotional response to the concept of rights and the importance of rights on those exact original meanings. They may not intellectually know the meaning, but they know it's important because they know that their country was founded on the principles that they are important.


It's not about intellectual definitions. It's about why people instinctively and emotionally respond to an issue of rights. Examine why that occurs and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

The words that describe the concept of natural rights do not correspond with any thing in the world. They are referent-less concepts, like a mountain made of solid diamond, or the elixir of life.



It has nothing to do with my definition. It is because there simply does not exist anything in the world which is described by "natural rights."



So you are arguing that a lot of people have been snookered into believing a foolish conception of what rights are? Sure I can buy that.

I'm not going to stop fighting for the "right" to medical care though; if someone has a problem with it, then they can talk to me about it and maybe I can convince them why natural rights is bunk.

And really, I'm not sure how you can possibly argue that most people are instinctively forming an emotional response to rights issues by referring to the 18th century tradition. Really, how can you possibly have an avenue of access into the psychology of every or even most of the categories of people in america? Do you run nation-wide psychological experiments devoted to elucidating that exact definition?

That's exactly my point. Neither situation can be accurately described as being "free", which was why I took issue with you describing the process of government support as liberating when it in fact makes you more dependent than you were previously. I agree that I'd rather be Leonardo than a subsistence farmer, but for many people who value self-determination, they might choose the latter instead.



I still argue with this position. How do we determine human rights, with your method? Apparently, we'd go with a majority opinion; the "collective of humanity" would decide that all humans are entitled to X but not Y. Now, unfortunately, that's mob rule. If I lived in a hypothetical world society which was ninety percent A and ten percent B, under your system, the government would be totally justified in changing the basic rights of population B based on the fact that they were outnumbered at the global voting process. Reverse the numbers and it's the same problem; you're leaving the majority to determine what is and isn't a basic human right, which of course defeats the purpose of having rights.

The whole point of basic human rights is that they can't be removed by a higher power. They're inalienable. If the UN got together today and unanimously decided that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ********* would that make genocide in the Sudan okay? If we all agree that Arabs are bad, and we outnumber the Arabs, are we justified in removing their basic rights to live and speak freely? Or any minority group, for that matter?

Of course we aren't, which is why I disagree with you. The whole purpose of having rights is that they exist to protect you from abuse by higher powers. If your opinion that the rights are only there by the whim of the higher powers is true, then there's no point having them. They offer as much protection as a condom made of rice paper.

I can tell this early on that we're going to get into a relative/objective debate, and there really isn't a solution to that one, so if that's where you're headed, just say so and we can call it.

And again, this doesn't describe anything. At least recognize what I am saying; you don't have to agree with it. It has nothing to do with how I define rights. It has to do with my failure to recognize certain existants as subsuming under your definition of rights.

Dogs are furry quadrupeds with cold noses (and some other ****). Sure, I can agree with that definition, but, as a matter of fact, there doesn't exist anything like that in the world; all of the furry quadrupeds in the world actually have hot noses. Now, pretend for a moment that our world was this world. I'm not changing your definition of what a dog is gbaji; I just don't believe that the world actually contains any of the things which could be classified as such.

Now, as a matter of fact, I do use a different definition of rights than you do, but that doesn't stop me from arguing with you under your definition. I did not claim that your definition was nonsensical, or that it conveyed no information; I merely claim that it describes nothing actual.



Of course not. If you don't exist (which you can't, because you are someone that can say no), then there is no one to say anything in particular at all. You'll probably say that that's just being picky, but it's not.

The very second that you insert even a single human will into the picture, you have rules and permission. You have society and the pressures that come with it. Most importantly, you have power, and the will that directs it. You grant yourself permission to speak, and give yourself the right to do so. You took the raw material of the world, with its laws and constrictions, and forged some ability out of it. It has nothing at all to do with nature.

Yup. Another "ding ding ding!" moment here.

The point of rights is specifically to prevent the majority from simply making up rules that benefit themselves at the detriment of everyone else. Pensive seems to think that natural rights don't (or can't exist), but fails to realize that it's the other way around. If they don't exist naturally (or outside of subjective interpretation), then they have no actual meaning at all.


Yet, we as a society place enormous weight on them. That's why I pointed this out as a dishonesty of the Left. They play on the importance the masses place on the concept of "rights", to push for things which are *not* rights at all.

Okay apparently you are a fucking imbecile? Is that the impression you were trying to convey?



Hilarious actually, that you believe that nostalgic and anecdotal reminiscence, coupled with an appeal to the education of the dude who disagrees with you (really what?) is equal to a psychological study, not only to prove the point that rights are held in some sacred sort of mental space (which they certainly may be) but more importantly are coupled with the 18th century definition of them, including the natural nature of them, the latter of which was really what I was contesting... and not the former.



Only if you believe that humans are impotent and powerless...

That's a widely held belief really, and it's fine if you share it, but you should at least admit it. I don't really understand why anyone would want to live in a world like that personally.

Well I could do that

The probably smarter thing is that I could contest the absolute fucking idiocy of imagining a world with one person in it, rendering your thought experiment entirely dead in the water, but the former sounds less wimpy of me and sometimes I like to bite bullets for fun.

SO yes, after realizing that you don't have a single leg to stand on if I were to take the predictable and monotonous route of ******** with you about the impossibility of us even talking about a world with one person... I'm going to go with the former and see where it might lead.