|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 12 2013 02:16 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 02:09 farvacola wrote:On April 12 2013 02:01 Fruscainte wrote:On April 12 2013 01:57 turdburgler wrote:On April 12 2013 01:50 Fruscainte wrote:
You guys saying "LOL TANKS AND JETS" still haven't explained how revolutions occurred and succeeded in Egypt and how a revolution is occurring in Syria right now and is winning. How people with nothing but hunting rifles and what we deem as "assault weapons" took on that country with tanks, helicopters, and trained soldiers?
because america is like egypt, literally minutes away from the next semi-christian dictator who is the puppet of a foreign regime. these examples are clearly similar. Your post makes absolutely no sense and you are completely ignoring the question. How can you truthfully say that a country can never rise up against its government because the government has tanks and jets when countries like Egypt and Syria have and are doing it. That is the only question you have to answer. His point is that that question is relatively useless; you aren't referencing "a country", you are referencing the United States. Therefore, it makes more sense to ask "How can you truthfully say that the United States can never rise up against its government because the government has tanks and jets when countries like Egypt and Syria have and are doing it." Still a clumsy sentence, but the point is that this comparison is lacking in many ways. It's a perfectly apt comparison. Let me make this clear, I don't think it would be easy or it would be a landslide victory for the people. It would probably be bloodier than our first Civil War, don't get me wrong on that. There will be massive deaths on our side and massive civilian deaths and massive military deaths. It will be incredible amounts of suffering and may never actually have any real resolution if it were to happen. However, one thing is clear -- a country can not oppress a people who are armed simply because they have tanks, jets, and battleships. The people, especially if they are already armed to the teeth, are not something you can push around so simply just because of a perceived technological advantage. t's a give and take. We may not have enough power to necessarily overthrow our military, but the military certainly does not have enough power to suppress the people. @ above You're acting like tens of thousands in the U.S. already don't own heavy amounts of explosives, anti-tank weaponry, armor piercing bullets, and kevlar body armor. Oh wait that's exactly what plenty of people already have. I like when you are talking about gun control and PROTECT THE CHILDREN, everyone has an automatic deadly military grade assault weapon. But when we start talking about revolution and protecting against the government, everyone has singleshot .22 hunting rifle.
Don't lump me in with the "protect the children" crowd--they're crazy. If they really wanted to decrease the mortality rate of children they'd increase welfare funds to poor communities instead of yelling at gun owners.
My dislike of guns is personal, but as we have concluded earlier, they 2008 decision overrules me on that.
However, I'm mostly trying to show that its not simply having guns that is allowing places like Syria to keep fighting. They were getting absolutely wasted early on in the fight until Europe and America stepped in. And I believe that much the same would happen here in the US.
But I also believe that if anything happened in the US--no matter which side wins, everyone would lose. Which is why emigration is the only real option (to me) if things hit the fan in the US.
|
On April 12 2013 00:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 00:25 gedatsu wrote:On April 12 2013 00:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 11 2013 23:23 Velr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Most of them would be on our side so it's not really much of an issue but yes I'm sure that they would be apprehensive about trying to use armor in urban combat, as any competent officer would be. Infantry > tanks in cities. If most of them would be on your side anyway, your argument just imploded? In this hypothetical situation, I'd rather be able to defend myself than hope that in this 6 million square mile country of 300+ million people there was a military unit loyal to the people nearby to defend me. The efficacy of francs-tireurs isn't relevant as to whether we should be able to have the arms to become francs-tireurs anyway. We (all humans) have a God-given, natural right to freedom and liberty and a God-given, natural right to defend our persons, our homes, our families, and our rights. God-given rights? That's hilariously delusional. I think you're missing the point. That's why I said natural as well. Rights independent of any human authority. No human has the right to take them away. They are not given, they are not creations of man. They exist and are inalienable. Come on, the idea of God-given or natural rights being something governments couldn't stomp all over was one of the greatest intellectual and civic achievements of the Enlightenment, and you're sitting there being a sarcastic jerk simply because God was mentioned. Sorry that religion apparently has the same effect on you as being sneered at by another one of the Cool Girls has on a 15 year old Cool Girl. So they were in fact given to you by the intellectuals of the Enlightenment era. I.e. not by nature. Right cannot be independent of human authority, because they exist only in relation to human authority. At any point in time, the people with the biggest guns could decide to walk all over your "inalienable rights", and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it except say "b-b-but God gave me rights". There's no such thing as natural rights. This is a very real, very serious question, and I mean it: What are they teaching in schools these days?
Honestly? In no particular order:
Feminism, Multiculturalism, Egalitarianism, Entitlement, Conflict Avoidance (at all costs), That feelings are more important than facts and rights, Political Correctness, and How to be a Coward 101.
There is greater focus on the Founder's as Racists than Philosophers, and more attention is paid to the plight of the Native Americans than to the Courageous expansion Westward.
I take great issue with deifying the Founder's as some do. I also take issue with actively ignoring mistakes to create a more favorable history; those are the moments we're supposed to learn from. But we've largely moved past the realm of acknowledgment and far into the territory of active shame and apology. It's absolute poison to the culture.
On Topic: The difference is completely cultural and will never be adequately explained either direction: European astonishment, or American immobility. Simply put, the vast majority of Europeans lack the cultural and historical faculties to appreciate the American 2nd. Amendment through no fault of their own. Just a result of cultural differences.
|
The truth is if you ban guns than only bad people will own guns. Law abiding Americans need guns in order to defend themselves properly against outlaws who own guns. Kinda like tanks. The general population aren't allowed to own tanks, so only gangs and drug lords have tanks. If normal people were allowed to own tanks, there would be a lot less tank violence in America. Same thing with RPG's and hand grenades. We should let law-abiding Americans own RPG's and hand grenades so they can defend themselves against the criminals who all have RPG's and hand grenades and don't care about the laws. Personally, I would like to own a .50 cal machine gun, land mines, and a grenade launcher (ya know, for home protection), and I'm sure that if I and every other American could own these things then violence in America would decrease.
|
the problem is that you are implying there is such a thing as a right you have, a natural right that can not be taken away no matter what because that's what "natural right" implies, a right that stands above everything a government could possibly do to you or someone else.
I'm not implying it, I'm saying it straight out. As has nearly every non-Marxist thinker for 300 years, and many of the Marxist ones as well.
Who also says this? Most of the constitutions / charters / supreme governing documents of the countries on earth that do not suck to live in.
You guys are fine with death penalty so cleary not even that can be considered a natural right although it's the closest thing to such a thing by far.
The right to life does not give cover for crimes that deserve death.
Frankly speaking it's quite obvious that there can't be more than 1 "most important" right that can not be altered no matter what, which means if you're trying to figure out which one is more important you WILL end up with realising that one has to be altered if you're tossing them against each other. So "natural rightS" isn't possible by definition. A single natural right is possible in theory.
Frankly speaking, this thread could really use a Philosophy 90 class.
|
On April 12 2013 02:22 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 02:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 12 2013 01:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 12 2013 00:32 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:27 Nachtwind wrote:On April 12 2013 00:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 11 2013 23:57 Nachtwind wrote:
So to ensure democracy in your land as people you use weapons and fear as a pillar of your society? It seems to be mostly Germans that ask this question and I don't understand why it is Germans in particular that ask it so often. No, fear is not a pillar of our society. Yes, weapons are a pillar of our society. Most of us over here happen to think that the guy who has 30 rifles in his basement because he's paranoid about the government is a guy who has issues, not a paragon of patriotism. Do you worry about being robbed constantly? No. Neither do we. I don't know when owning a gun became an expression of fear, but that just makes no sense to me. Americans do not buy guns because they are constantly afraid. Well then i missunderstood your sentence where you said you like that [the goverment?] fears you because you have a gun like they have [equalizer]. No, you didn't misunderstand the language at all. You just can't comprehend the cultural meaning. He didn't misunderstand, he just places less value in what you value. To him, if you need guns to maintain something--then you don't really have it. You feel that guns are simply a show, that you do have it, and a symbol of you having it is the gun. And he's asking why you should have such a dangerous symbol that can hurt people, and you're saying that it keeps your rights safe. And he's asking "are your rights unsafe? are they in danger? do you really have them?" And you're going "you just can't comprehend the cultural meaning." Nope. And if that's what he believes, it's even more silly than I thought. Do I really not have this computer because I need electricity to run it? Guns are not a show. They are not a symbol. They are guns. I am not saying that in response to his questions. I answered his questions, he still didn't get it, so I chalk it up to a cultural difference that he cannot comprehend. Private ownership of guns is both a right and a safeguard of rights. Are our rights unsafe? Are they in danger? It doesn't matter one way or the other. Do we really have them? Yes. And vigilance is the price of keeping them. I don't have a gun--does that mean I don't have rights? If the price of rights is having the vigilance to keep them and I don't have a gun--am I to assume I have no rights? EDIT: If guns are just your property and you don't believe the US Government should be able to define what property you can or can't have I understand that--but its this whole "keep vigilance" thing that i believe is confusing people. Why would not having a gun mean you don't have rights? I don't own a gun, I don't think I have no rights. I believe (no, wait, I know) I already agreed with a long list of behaviors that can be used before violence (with a gun or not) to safeguard rights - so why are you asking these questions? Why is it always the same questions, and why are they always so dumb? If some people think that the author and guarantor of their rights is the government, they can go do that. I do not and tens of millions of other Americans don't either. My rights don't come from the government, the government's privileges come from me. If I don't do my own part to keep them from being abridged, chances are someday there won't be enough people left who care enough to pick up the slack for people who don't do their own part and our freedoms will waste away. And when all the things we've constructed to resolve disputes - personal, political (domestic and international) - without violence fails, that's why people should have a right to a gun if they wish to have one. World War I was supposed to be The War to End All Wars. The end of the Cold War was supposed to be The End of History. Nothing is guaranteed.
Since you don't read your own posts, let me share.
Do we really have them? Yes. And vigilance is the price of keeping them.
Vigilance is the price of keeping them--do you know what that means? That without vigilance, you don't keep them. I am literally disagreeing with the very words you are saying.
I don't own a gun, which means I lack vigilance, which means I have no rights.
But if you don't need a gun to maintain vigilance--then you don't need a gun at all to maintain rights.
The government is not a separate entity from the people--it is one with the people. It is our fellow citizens tasked with the daily operations of maintaining a country. They handle roads, mail, power lines, teach students, drive a bus, chase thieves, put out fires, etc... I don't need a gun to help maintain those rights of my life. Nor should I need a gun to maintain vigilance over the other parts of my life.
|
@magpie
I agree, everyone would lose. I agree, tanks and shit are beyond deadly. I agree, it would be a struggle.
However, at the end of the day, when things like the Remington 87 and AR-15 are two of the most common weapons in America, saying everyone has "hunting rifles" is pretty silly. Nonetheless, "hunting rifles" is a pretty vague term. Most hunting rifles fire rounds larger and far more deadly than "assault weapons" with more accuracy. It doesn't matter if you use "hunting rifle" as a derogatory term, bullets are bullets and when you have a gun that can take out a deer from 300 yards away, I don't think it's too far stretched to say it can do similar damage to a human.
|
On April 12 2013 02:43 Quexana wrote:
The truth is if you ban guns than only bad people will own guns. Law abiding Americans need guns in order to defend themselves properly against outlaws who own guns. Kinda like tanks. The general population aren't allowed to own tanks, so only gangs and drug lords have tanks. If normal people were allowed to own tanks, there would be a lot less tank violence in America. Same thing with RPG's and hand grenades. We should let law-abiding Americans own RPG's and hand grenades so they can defend themselves against the criminals who all have RPG's and hand grenades and don't care about the laws. Personally, I would like to own a .50 cal machine gun, land mines, and a grenade launcher (ya know, for home protection), and I'm sure that if I and every other American could own these things then violence in America would decrease.
I promise you that after you lay down 50-100 mines it simply takes 1-2 of them to go off before you are perfectly safe 
|
On April 12 2013 02:45 Fruscainte wrote:
@magpie
I agree, everyone would lose. I agree, tanks and shit are beyond deadly. I agree, it would be a struggle.
However, at the end of the day, when things like the Remington 87 and AR-15 are two of the most common weapons in America, saying everyone has "hunting rifles" is pretty silly. Nonetheless, "hunting rifles" is a pretty vague term. Most hunting rifles fire rounds larger and far more deadly than "assault weapons" with more accuracy. It doesn't matter if you use "hunting rifle" as a derogatory term, bullets are bullets and when you have a gun that can take out a deer from 300 yards away, I don't think it's too far stretched to say it can do similar damage to a human.
I agree with that.
And I agree that during a civil war the military that is on your side of the debate will LOVE that you have a gun that kills a man at 300 yards to complement their artillery pieces and abrahms.
But unless its a civil war scenario--I just don't have a lot of faith of any military troop standing up to the full might of the US Military.
|
On April 12 2013 02:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +the problem is that you are implying there is such a thing as a right you have, a natural right that can not be taken away no matter what because that's what "natural right" implies, a right that stands above everything a government could possibly do to you or someone else. I'm not implying it, I'm saying it straight out. As has nearly every non-Marxist thinker for 300 years, and many of the Marxist ones as well. Who also says this? Most of the constitutions / charters / supreme governing documents of the countries on earth that do not suck to live in. Show nested quote +You guys are fine with death penalty so cleary not even that can be considered a natural right although it's the closest thing to such a thing by far. The right to life does not give cover for crimes that deserve death. Show nested quote +Frankly speaking it's quite obvious that there can't be more than 1 "most important" right that can not be altered no matter what, which means if you're trying to figure out which one is more important you WILL end up with realising that one has to be altered if you're tossing them against each other. So "natural rightS" isn't possible by definition. A single natural right is possible in theory. Frankly speaking, this thread could really use a Philosophy 90 class.
To sum it up: You don't consider the right to life, the by far most important right (imo and according to my consitution) a natural right but still tell us there are natural rights? What would that be?
|
On April 12 2013 02:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 02:22 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 02:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 12 2013 01:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 12 2013 00:32 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:27 Nachtwind wrote:On April 12 2013 00:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 11 2013 23:57 Nachtwind wrote:
So to ensure democracy in your land as people you use weapons and fear as a pillar of your society? It seems to be mostly Germans that ask this question and I don't understand why it is Germans in particular that ask it so often. No, fear is not a pillar of our society. Yes, weapons are a pillar of our society. Most of us over here happen to think that the guy who has 30 rifles in his basement because he's paranoid about the government is a guy who has issues, not a paragon of patriotism. Do you worry about being robbed constantly? No. Neither do we. I don't know when owning a gun became an expression of fear, but that just makes no sense to me. Americans do not buy guns because they are constantly afraid. Well then i missunderstood your sentence where you said you like that [the goverment?] fears you because you have a gun like they have [equalizer]. No, you didn't misunderstand the language at all. You just can't comprehend the cultural meaning. He didn't misunderstand, he just places less value in what you value. To him, if you need guns to maintain something--then you don't really have it. You feel that guns are simply a show, that you do have it, and a symbol of you having it is the gun. And he's asking why you should have such a dangerous symbol that can hurt people, and you're saying that it keeps your rights safe. And he's asking "are your rights unsafe? are they in danger? do you really have them?" And you're going "you just can't comprehend the cultural meaning." Nope. And if that's what he believes, it's even more silly than I thought. Do I really not have this computer because I need electricity to run it? Guns are not a show. They are not a symbol. They are guns. I am not saying that in response to his questions. I answered his questions, he still didn't get it, so I chalk it up to a cultural difference that he cannot comprehend. Private ownership of guns is both a right and a safeguard of rights. Are our rights unsafe? Are they in danger? It doesn't matter one way or the other. Do we really have them? Yes. And vigilance is the price of keeping them. I don't have a gun--does that mean I don't have rights? If the price of rights is having the vigilance to keep them and I don't have a gun--am I to assume I have no rights? EDIT: If guns are just your property and you don't believe the US Government should be able to define what property you can or can't have I understand that--but its this whole "keep vigilance" thing that i believe is confusing people. Why would not having a gun mean you don't have rights? I don't own a gun, I don't think I have no rights. I believe (no, wait, I know) I already agreed with a long list of behaviors that can be used before violence (with a gun or not) to safeguard rights - so why are you asking these questions? Why is it always the same questions, and why are they always so dumb? If some people think that the author and guarantor of their rights is the government, they can go do that. I do not and tens of millions of other Americans don't either. My rights don't come from the government, the government's privileges come from me. If I don't do my own part to keep them from being abridged, chances are someday there won't be enough people left who care enough to pick up the slack for people who don't do their own part and our freedoms will waste away. And when all the things we've constructed to resolve disputes - personal, political (domestic and international) - without violence fails, that's why people should have a right to a gun if they wish to have one. World War I was supposed to be The War to End All Wars. The end of the Cold War was supposed to be The End of History. Nothing is guaranteed. Since you don't read your own posts, let me share. Vigilance is the price of keeping them--do you know what that means? That without vigilance, you don't keep them. I am literally disagreeing with the very words you are saying. I don't own a gun, which means I lack vigilance, which means I have no rights. But if you don't need a gun to maintain vigilance--then you don't need a gun at all to maintain rights. The government is not a separate entity from the people--it is one with the people. It is our fellow citizens tasked with the daily operations of maintaining a country. They handle roads, mail, power lines, teach students, drive a bus, chase thieves, put out fires, etc... I don't need a gun to help maintain those rights of my life. Nor should I need a gun to maintain vigilance over the other parts of my life.
Did you read where I agreed with Nachtwind's list of things to do to be vigilant about our rights, which didn't include gun ownership or use?
I did not say not owning a gun meant a lack of vigilance. I did not say owning a gun was a necessity to maintain rights. While lecturing me about not reading posts - a projection, as you did not read mine, obviously - you are now making false choice arguments via strawmen. Devolving the conversation.
You've given a very fine Obama speech there, but the government is one with the people only in as much as it reflects the will of the people. The government is a creation of the people. They are not synonymous.
I don't care if you don't need a gun to maintain those rights of your life. I don't care either way. Good for you that you've chosen to exercise your freedom in that way. It's not my business to care about your choices in that area. Good for you that you have the ideal that you shouldn't need a gun. Please stop trying to control those of us who disagree with you.
To sum it up: You don't consider the right to life, the by far most important right (imo and according to my consitution) a natural right but still tell us there are natural rights? What would that be?
Ever heard of due process?
To sum it up: You keep trying to find a contradiction that doesn't exist.
|
On April 12 2013 02:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +the problem is that you are implying there is such a thing as a right you have, a natural right that can not be taken away no matter what because that's what "natural right" implies, a right that stands above everything a government could possibly do to you or someone else. I'm not implying it, I'm saying it straight out. As has nearly every non-Marxist thinker for 300 years, and many of the Marxist ones as well. Who also says this? Most of the constitutions / charters / supreme governing documents of the countries on earth that do not suck to live in. Show nested quote +You guys are fine with death penalty so cleary not even that can be considered a natural right although it's the closest thing to such a thing by far. The right to life does not give cover for crimes that deserve death. Show nested quote +Frankly speaking it's quite obvious that there can't be more than 1 "most important" right that can not be altered no matter what, which means if you're trying to figure out which one is more important you WILL end up with realising that one has to be altered if you're tossing them against each other. So "natural rightS" isn't possible by definition. A single natural right is possible in theory.
Frankly speaking, this thread could really use a Philosophy 90 class.
Pffft. Most Humanists actively reject the idea that what they're preaching (yes PREACHING) is nothing more than modified Salvation Theology. The entire society seems obsessed with the idea of atheistic Christianity (or Modern Egalitarianism).
Your dealing with people who actively refuse to study the history of their own ideologies. That's why I've largely given up on this thread (though I still find myself coming back every so often).
Edit: That being said, I am in concert with them insofar as "Rights" are concerned. Might does in fact make right.
|
On April 12 2013 02:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +To sum it up: You don't consider the right to life, the by far most important right (imo and according to my consitution) a natural right but still tell us there are natural rights? What would that be? Ever heard of due process? To sum it up: You keep trying to find a contradiction that doesn't exist.
I'm not. You're sayig there is such a thing as a right that you are given no matter what, a right that no government has a right to alter no matter what because it stands above the government. A natural right would be something that is not part of due process because it's completly untouchable no matter what. If something is touchable by a government it's not above the government.
|
On April 12 2013 03:01 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 02:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:To sum it up: You don't consider the right to life, the by far most important right (imo and according to my consitution) a natural right but still tell us there are natural rights? What would that be? Ever heard of due process? To sum it up: You keep trying to find a contradiction that doesn't exist. I'm not. You're sayig there is such a thing as a right that you are given no matter what, a right that no government has a right to alter no matter what because it stands above the government. A natural right would be something that is not part of due process because it's completly untouchable no matter what. If something is touchable by a government it's not above the government.
Except it's not the government that does that.
It's the people.
Jurors.
|
On April 12 2013 01:50 Fruscainte wrote:
You guys saying "LOL TANKS AND JETS" still haven't explained how revolutions occurred and succeeded in Egypt and how a revolution is occurring in Syria right now and is winning. How people with nothing but hunting rifles and what we deem as "assault weapons" took on that country with tanks, helicopters, and trained soldiers?
It seems like you don’t know very much about these two conflicts with a quick google of the Syrian rebels you can see that they mostly consist of defectors from the Syrian military with assistance from some of the population and some outside organizations here you can read the wiki page if you don’t want to search for it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war
And the Egyptian revolution was a far more peaceful affair there was quite a few accounts of police brutality but not very many dead compared to Syria because the Egyptian population was mostly unarmed and the revolution had far more support. If you want to read about that once again wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Egyptian_revolution
so in a weird way you are right you can start a revolution against a military power far greater than your own but this is best done without weapons because if you have to sites shooting at each other it is much harder for the population to tell who is the aggresor than it is if only one side is shooting
|
oh yeah, the lynch mob you put into court.... lol.
|
On April 12 2013 03:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 03:01 Toadesstern wrote:On April 12 2013 02:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:To sum it up: You don't consider the right to life, the by far most important right (imo and according to my consitution) a natural right but still tell us there are natural rights? What would that be? Ever heard of due process? To sum it up: You keep trying to find a contradiction that doesn't exist. I'm not. You're sayig there is such a thing as a right that you are given no matter what, a right that no government has a right to alter no matter what because it stands above the government. A natural right would be something that is not part of due process because it's completly untouchable no matter what. If something is touchable by a government it's not above the government. Except it's not the government that does that. It's the people. Jurors.
obviously I'm referring to a correct juristic system... There's never such a thing as the "government" acting on it's own like that to begin with, if it's working how it's supposed to. You're just argueing semantics here...
Again. A natural right would be something that can not be taken away rightfully ever and that's just not the case. You have the death penalty, there are situations where it's okay to kill someone like self defense, everyone knows about the plank dilemma or whatever it's called in english and so on.
|
On April 12 2013 03:11 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 03:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 03:01 Toadesstern wrote:On April 12 2013 02:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:To sum it up: You don't consider the right to life, the by far most important right (imo and according to my consitution) a natural right but still tell us there are natural rights? What would that be? Ever heard of due process? To sum it up: You keep trying to find a contradiction that doesn't exist. I'm not. You're sayig there is such a thing as a right that you are given no matter what, a right that no government has a right to alter no matter what because it stands above the government. A natural right would be something that is not part of due process because it's completly untouchable no matter what. If something is touchable by a government it's not above the government. Except it's not the government that does that. It's the people. Jurors. obviously I'm referring to a correct juristic system... There's never such a thing as the "government" acting on it's own like that to begin with, if it's working how it's supposed to. You're just argueing semantics here... Again. A natural right would be something that can not be taken away rightfully ever and that's just not the case. You have the death penalty, there are situations where it's okay to kill someone like self defense, everyone knows about the plank dilemma or whatever it's called in english and so on.
No, I am not arguing semantics. Agents of the government have no legitimate power to kill anyone save in self-defense or defense of others, war, or by direction of a jury. In other words, by the direction of the people.
You give up your right to life when you attack someone; until you stop, their right to defend themselves > your right to life. Natural rights cannot be taken away, you're right. They can be given up. I'm not much of a libertarian, but the non-aggression principle is right. The aggressor gives up his rights by his aggression, by attempting to take away the rights of others without just cause.
You're just saying the same wrong thing over and over and maybe it will be right this time. Well, it won't.
|
On April 12 2013 02:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Frankly speaking, this thread could really use a Philosophy 90 class.
Most people who've taken philosophy classes don't think there are crimes which deserve death. Not to derail, but it's ironic that you'd lament the lack of philosophical awareness in this thread when, to my knowledge, the vast majority of ethicists are against the death penalty.
|
On April 12 2013 02:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +the problem is that you are implying there is such a thing as a right you have, a natural right that can not be taken away no matter what because that's what "natural right" implies, a right that stands above everything a government could possibly do to you or someone else. I'm not implying it, I'm saying it straight out. As has nearly every non-Marxist thinker for 300 years, and many of the Marxist ones as well. Who also says this? Most of the constitutions / charters / supreme governing documents of the countries on earth that do not suck to live in. Show nested quote +You guys are fine with death penalty so cleary not even that can be considered a natural right although it's the closest thing to such a thing by far. The right to life does not give cover for crimes that deserve death. Show nested quote +Frankly speaking it's quite obvious that there can't be more than 1 "most important" right that can not be altered no matter what, which means if you're trying to figure out which one is more important you WILL end up with realising that one has to be altered if you're tossing them against each other. So "natural rightS" isn't possible by definition. A single natural right is possible in theory. Frankly speaking, this thread could really use a Philosophy 90 class.
I think I should ask you where did you read your philosophy. A lot of non-marxist philosophers completely refuse existence of rights as basis for ethics. All those constitutions and laws actually show that all those rights are society-given, not god-given. All those rights have myriad of exceptions (like death penalty for some crimes that you already agreed exist). Rights are just generalized ethical rules that have much deeper justification and we are using them instead of that deeper ethical justification because they are easy to use in everyday life. It is simpler to follow simple rules (rights) instead of carefully analyzing every situation and doing ethical calculus. But as our societies get more complicated and more sophisticated and more wealthy we introduce more and more exceptions to many of these rights as we can finally identify situations where application of those rules (rights) are actually not ethical.
|
On April 12 2013 03:18 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 02:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Frankly speaking, this thread could really use a Philosophy 90 class. Most people who've taken philosophy classes don't think there are crimes which deserve death. Not to derail, but it's ironic that you'd lament the lack of philosophical awareness in this thread when, to my knowledge, the vast majority of ethicists are against the death penalty.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony
Surely the majority of ethicists would not make such a double mistake as appealing to both authority and majority in the same paragraph.
I think I should ask you where did you read your philosophy. A lot of non-marxist philosophers completely refuse existence of rights as basis for ethics. All those constitutions and laws actually show that all those rights are society-given, not god-given. All those rights have myriad of exceptions (like death penalty for some crimes that you already agreed exist). Rights are just generalized ethical rules that have much deeper justification and we are using them instead of that deeper ethical justification because they are easy to use in everyday life. It is simpler to follow simple rules (rights) instead of carefully analyzing every situation and doing ethical calculus. But as our societies get more complicated and more sophisticated and more wealthy we introduce more and more exceptions to many of these rights as we can finally identify situations where application of those rules (rights) are actually not ethical.
Kant, Locke, Hume, Montesquieu, Aquinas, "Publius," etc. I don't have much preference for more modern thinkers. And your paragraph is an excellent example why I do not. You can point to the fact that it was men who wrote and so it is not God-given or natural but a construct of man, but the men who wrote it did not think that. They were aiming for a higher ideal. You can say complications create exceptions and things get turned on their head, and you can do so by breaking it down structurally, and what do you get? Less happiness, less freedom. What you get is a sick society that eats itself. Our society today. I'm still stuck back at the American and French Revolutions, I have little truck with the advancements - if you can call them that - in philosophy in general and ethics in particular since then.
I'll find more worth to humanity in a single page of the Federalist Papers than I will in positive prose that does not support its normative conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
