the great thing about posting on /r/politics around US election time is you can rack up 1000 karma in 1 day without even trying. man dem internet points so tasty.
On October 24 2012 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote: [quote]
So don't bring up the philosophy dating back to the "dawn of humanity" in when there's no evidence it was there...
It's simply human nature for people to want to be free. There are three things everyone has the right to: life, liberty, and the fruits of your labor. And those three things branch out to various different other rights. For instance, the right to life extends to the right to bear arms (and self-defense); the right to the fruits of your labor branches out to the rights of private property, etc.
Actually, there is no relation to the "right to life" and the right to bear arms. There is also no right to self-defense. There is also no right to private party or ownership of your labor. These things are not constitutionally based.
Actually, they are.
The right to bear arms is in the federal constitution and in almost every single state constitution. Additionally, the Constitution states that the government CANNOT take away one's life or property without due process, which can easily be interpretted as respecting them as rights.
Our rights don't come from the Constitution though, they come from nature; the Constitution only protects are already pre-existing natural rights.
How do rights come from nature? Did a tree suddenly speak to you?
Okay, so do you think murder, theft, rape, etc. are acceptable?
Do you think they would be acceptable, even if laws were NOT in place against them?
No such thing as a "natural right." you can make a universalizing moral claim (and I often do), but that's not the same as a "natural" right
Morality is another argument altogether, but if I go out and attack or steal from someone, I am violating their rights as an individual.
yeah, I agree, but not their "natural rights"
edit: scratch that, I don't really believe in "rights." the action would be immoral however
Good edit. Rights are completely incompatible with your philosophy. And yet, the left are always prattling on about "rights" to health care, education, etc. We know what they really mean, that rights are what the state feigns to bestow upon the subservient public.
i cant think of a better answer than, yes? i cant be bothered to get in to a philosophy debate at 5am but i dont see whats inherently wrong with a social contract that exchanges taxation and all that entails with certain rights which may or may not be natural to a person anyway.
On October 24 2012 13:02 turdburgler wrote: the great thing about posting on /r/politics around US election time is you can rack up 1000 karma in 1 day without even trying. man dem internet points so tasty.
Thank god I don't ever use reddit. Sounds like an absolute nightmare. I imagine TL, except all the liberals keep up-voting each other in a never ending circle jerk.
On October 24 2012 13:02 turdburgler wrote: the great thing about posting on /r/politics around US election time is you can rack up 1000 karma in 1 day without even trying. man dem internet points so tasty.
Thank god I don't ever use reddit. Sounds like an absolute nightmare. I imagine TL, except all the liberals keep up-voting each other in a never ending circle jerk.
would you believe I made rather exactly this same point to my sister re: reddit about 3 minutes ago?
On October 24 2012 13:02 turdburgler wrote: the great thing about posting on /r/politics around US election time is you can rack up 1000 karma in 1 day without even trying. man dem internet points so tasty.
Thank god I don't ever use reddit. Sounds like an absolute nightmare. I imagine TL, except all the liberals keep up-voting each other in a never ending circle jerk.
Well, if you really wanted to know, we have other means to circle jerk, so we are fine without the up-votes, thank you.
On October 24 2012 13:07 turdburgler wrote: actually all you need is a good knowledge of pop/nerd culture references, having an opinion is completely optional.
On October 24 2012 11:43 nevermindthebollocks wrote: [quote] but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? Free speech is free speech. So even lying is protected (if they do lie). Companies don't take profits they make them. (I think your class warfare is showing.)
Unions have and should have the same rights.
PS I like how unions teach and companies lie. lol
You didn't respond to my last post, but again, we have political parties, where individuals can voice their concerns as a group. Corporations are not political groups. They're not congenial.
Someone who works at Walmart doesn't have the same political views as the Walton family. But you're saying the money that worker earns for the company should be spent by that company for political concerns that many of the workers don't believe in.
It's a disgusting disregard for the political process, and goes completely against the spirit of democracy. Democracy is supposed to give individuals -- actual people -- the ultimate voice against all other powers -- especially monetary powers.
shareholders, not employees.
shareholders are the speakers there, not the employees.
Incorrect.
Way incorrect.
The majority of shares has the say, even if that majority of shares is held by aminority of shareholders as is often the case. And you're missing the point that the money, or "speech", being spent here was earned by, yes, the workers.
Corporations are not formed for political influence. The controller(s) of these corporations should not be given some massive political influence, spending money in terms of "speech" even though that money was earned collectively, because you think it equates to "freedom" out of some backwards interpretation of the constitution.
Can't believe people really think it's a good thing for our Republic to have Citizens United. It so plainly is not.
weren't you the one incorrectly lecturing to me earlier about legal stuff.
just stop.
You obviously interpret things differently, and see it as somehow being definitively correct. That is what should stop.
If you disagree with me about something, than say what it is or why. If you can't, then don't.
You said something wrong, deal with it. Shareholders are not the speakers of a company, shares are, and that's a very crucial difference that you conveniently missed, Professor. And the "speech" we are referring to in this discussion is the monetary sum of the corporation's assets, which was earned by the workers.
All workers have a vested interest in their company, and its assets.
Shareholders hold a share. When you buy a share you are assenting to a company's charter. The charter delegates authority to a board of directors. This board of directors you may elect, but you are essentially delegating your money to them and entrust them to use it wisely. It very much IS the shareholders speech. The board is allowed to spend that money on anything they can relate back to being a business decision. Donating money to a political candidate that favors a desired business environment is allowed because of that. I could break it down much more (while my specialty isn't corporate law, I have taken the basics in this field). Long-story-short, you are telling me what you WANT a system to be. Not what the system IS.
PS, Workers do not have a right to a company's assets. Only shareholders do. And even those are limited due to their agreement to invest w/r/t the corporate charter.
You missed the point that I've been saying to you repeatedly: shareholders are not of equal worth. That is all I was correcting you on.
For example, a million people own a million shares of my company. I own a million-and-one. Ergo, my vote is the only vote that matters. A million shareholders -- overridden by one man.
Shareholders are not how you measure a company's voice -- you measure it in the shares themselves. Talking about "shareholders" in the context you were previously makes it all sound much more democratic -- but it's misleading. Shareholders don't vote --- SHARES VOTE. How many different ways do I have to make this point?
I have made this point repeatedly and you continue to willfully ignore it and pretend the argument is over something else entirely. You're talking about "board of directors" -- save me the lecture that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
Strawmen City up in this thread, I'm out for a while.
Yes they are. 1 share = 1 vote. Stop trying to twist it into something it's not.
Glad you finally agree that shares -- not shareholders -- are how a company tallies its votes. I didn't twist anything you've said. Rather you've insisted on arguing with me over imaginary points. Many companies' majority of shares are held by a small minority of actual shareholders. There is nothing inherently democratic about the way a corporation spends its assets.
You can just keep saying that if you want, but its not true. The United States is a unified nation, and you have provided absolutely no evidence otherwise (except for saying that other people said it was true!). POTUS leads the Federal government, as is laid out in the constitution, and only concerns himself with the workings on going-ons of the Federal Government. We stopped being a loose knit group of individual states, and began to be a unified nation a long time ago.
We are and were always intended to be a loose collection, even the federalists realized that they didn't want a completely "unified" state that is run from the top down. I recommend reading the Federalist Papers.
The Federalist papers are over 200 years old bro, thus refer to the last sentence of the nestled quote above.
They're old, so what? Political philosophy, especially a philosophy such as classical liberalism, doesn't go away or even really change.
LOL
classical liberalism is not eternal and is furthermore an extraordinarily recent phenomenon. things change
somebody bring me my fukuyama voodoo doll I have some stress to let out
I was unaware that the 17th century was "recent," though I suppose it is all relative. The idea of individuals being superior to the state goes back much farther than John Locke and the Founding Fathers though; perhaps all the way back to the dawn of humanity.
I'm pretty sure there have been no states in plenty of places even well into historical times, never mind the dawn of humanity.
There are those that argue that there have always been states, even if it's something well removed from what we normally consider a state. A the alpha caveman who lead the other caveman could be interpreted as the existence of a state.
There are also people who argue the Earth is flat. And I'm sure you could construct some crazy geometry in which the Earth is flat, just like you could create a convoluted unfalsifiable useless definition of a state such that is has always existed.
On October 24 2012 13:02 turdburgler wrote: the great thing about posting on /r/politics around US election time is you can rack up 1000 karma in 1 day without even trying. man dem internet points so tasty.
On October 24 2012 12:38 Swazi Spring wrote: [quote] It's simply human nature for people to want to be free. There are three things everyone has the right to: life, liberty, and the fruits of your labor. And those three things branch out to various different other rights. For instance, the right to life extends to the right to bear arms (and self-defense); the right to the fruits of your labor branches out to the rights of private property, etc.
Actually, there is no relation to the "right to life" and the right to bear arms. There is also no right to self-defense. There is also no right to private party or ownership of your labor. These things are not constitutionally based.
Actually, they are.
The right to bear arms is in the federal constitution and in almost every single state constitution. Additionally, the Constitution states that the government CANNOT take away one's life or property without due process, which can easily be interpretted as respecting them as rights.
Our rights don't come from the Constitution though, they come from nature; the Constitution only protects are already pre-existing natural rights.
How do rights come from nature? Did a tree suddenly speak to you?
Okay, so do you think murder, theft, rape, etc. are acceptable?
Do you think they would be acceptable, even if laws were NOT in place against them?
No such thing as a "natural right." you can make a universalizing moral claim (and I often do), but that's not the same as a "natural" right
Morality is another argument altogether, but if I go out and attack or steal from someone, I am violating their rights as an individual.
yeah, I agree, but not their "natural rights"
edit: scratch that, I don't really believe in "rights." the action would be immoral however
Good edit. Rights are completely incompatible with your philosophy. And yet, the left are always prattling on about "rights" to health care, education, etc. We know what they really mean, that rights are what the state feigns to bestow upon the subservient public.
i cant think of a better answer than, yes? i cant be bothered to get in to a philosophy debate at 5am
On October 24 2012 13:02 turdburgler wrote: the great thing about posting on /r/politics around US election time is you can rack up 1000 karma in 1 day without even trying. man dem internet points so tasty.
On October 24 2012 12:38 Swazi Spring wrote: [quote] It's simply human nature for people to want to be free. There are three things everyone has the right to: life, liberty, and the fruits of your labor. And those three things branch out to various different other rights. For instance, the right to life extends to the right to bear arms (and self-defense); the right to the fruits of your labor branches out to the rights of private property, etc.
Actually, there is no relation to the "right to life" and the right to bear arms. There is also no right to self-defense. There is also no right to private party or ownership of your labor. These things are not constitutionally based.
Actually, they are.
The right to bear arms is in the federal constitution and in almost every single state constitution. Additionally, the Constitution states that the government CANNOT take away one's life or property without due process, which can easily be interpretted as respecting them as rights.
Our rights don't come from the Constitution though, they come from nature; the Constitution only protects are already pre-existing natural rights.
How do rights come from nature? Did a tree suddenly speak to you?
Okay, so do you think murder, theft, rape, etc. are acceptable?
Do you think they would be acceptable, even if laws were NOT in place against them?
No such thing as a "natural right." you can make a universalizing moral claim (and I often do), but that's not the same as a "natural" right
Morality is another argument altogether, but if I go out and attack or steal from someone, I am violating their rights as an individual.
yeah, I agree, but not their "natural rights"
edit: scratch that, I don't really believe in "rights." the action would be immoral however
Good edit. Rights are completely incompatible with your philosophy. And yet, the left are always prattling on about "rights" to health care, education, etc. We know what they really mean, that rights are what the state feigns to bestow upon the subservient public.
i cant think of a better answer than, yes? i cant be bothered to get in to a philosophy debate at 5am but i dont see whats inherently wrong with a social contract that exchanges taxation and all that entails with certain rights which may or may not be natural to a person anyway.
What's wrong, and what has always been wrong with the social contract, is that it involuntarily imposes itself upon individuals. And no, telling people to leave their home country is not a valid argument for implied consent, it's simply expressed extortion.
On October 24 2012 11:43 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:40 .Wilsh. wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:28 Leporello wrote:
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? Free speech is free speech. So even lying is protected (if they do lie). Companies don't take profits they make them. (I think your class warfare is showing.)
Unions have and should have the same rights.
PS I like how unions teach and companies lie. lol
You didn't respond to my last post, but again, we have political parties, where individuals can voice their concerns as a group. Corporations are not political groups. They're not congenial.
Someone who works at Walmart doesn't have the same political views as the Walton family. But you're saying the money that worker earns for the company should be spent by that company for political concerns that many of the workers don't believe in.
It's a disgusting disregard for the political process, and goes completely against the spirit of democracy. Democracy is supposed to give individuals -- actual people -- the ultimate voice against all other powers -- especially monetary powers.
we have political parties, where individuals can voice their concerns as a group You don't have to be in or have a political party to voice concerns as a group. You and 10 of your friends can pool your money and take an add in the paper. So if you own a business with 10 employees you should be able to take an add as well. Now your employees might not agree with the ad, but it is your business.
But you're saying the money that worker earns for the company should be spent by that company for political concerns that many of the workers don't believe in. The owner of the business earned that money and paid the worker for helping. So the owner can do whatever he wishes with the money. Is there a company wide vote about the budget every year? No because the owner (or whoever the owner appoints) sets the budget.
It's a disgusting disregard for the political process, and goes completely against the spirit of democracy. Democracy is supposed to give individuals -- actual people -- the ultimate voice against all other powers -- especially monetary powers. Companies are made up of individuals.
Also we are a Republic, not Democracy. =P
I underlined a sentence that you need to reread carefully. We're not talking about the owner's take-home pay, of which he can gladly spend to his favorite political party. You're talking about the corporation's assets. These assets were earned collectively and are owned, collectively. Yes, the owner(s) can ultimately sell the company and take whatever assets are there -- and then it becomes their personal money to spend. But as long as the corporation exists, it is the corporation's money, and doesn't belong to any actual living person. Corporations are NOT people.
And then there is the separate matter of letting unlimited money into our political process, from corporations or actual people. This too is disgustingly derisive to our democratic process.
Owners == shareholders != employees.
Example: You start a landscaping company that has 10 employees. 1) Who decides if you buy new tools? (For the following questions I assume that you answered 'Me' for this one)
2) Can you buy a new truck for your company?
3) Can you buy a smart car for your company even though there is no use for it?
4) Can you buy an add in the news paper for your company?
5) Can you buy an add in support of gay marriage for your company?
This is a strawman that misses the whole point. You're not arguing with anything I was saying. I never said shareholders==employees. All I have ever said is that the shareholders are spending money earned by the employees.
That money is being spent, collectively, for the good of the company, when it goes to buying a new truck, or an advertisement for the company.
It should not go into the political process. You have not given one good reason why it should go into our political process. Politics is for the people -- the living, breathing citizens of the country, to have control of the country. You want to trivialize that basic principle by introducing monetary powers into our politics a very direct way -- monetary powers that are often international (how are we continually skipping over this point that corporations aren't even bound to a single country????!!) and of a collective and diverse of interests that often will conflict with the interest of the workers and the actual people that live and breath.
Dis-gust-ing.
You skip my arguments completely. You do not understand basic economics, micro transactions or capitalism. Statements like this are just wrong: shareholders are spending money earned by the employees. I was trying to show you it. We can't get on the same page.
What is really funny is that Citizens United isn't even like a corporate either of us are describing. They are a non-profit that makes films about political issues. That's pretty much it. All the employees play some part in making conservative films.
On October 24 2012 13:02 turdburgler wrote: the great thing about posting on /r/politics around US election time is you can rack up 1000 karma in 1 day without even trying. man dem internet points so tasty.
On October 24 2012 13:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:53 sam!zdat wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:51 Swazi Spring wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:50 sam!zdat wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:47 Swazi Spring wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:46 Souma wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:45 Swazi Spring wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:43 BluePanther wrote: [quote]
Actually, there is no relation to the "right to life" and the right to bear arms. There is also no right to self-defense. There is also no right to private party or ownership of your labor. These things are not constitutionally based.
Actually, they are.
The right to bear arms is in the federal constitution and in almost every single state constitution. Additionally, the Constitution states that the government CANNOT take away one's life or property without due process, which can easily be interpretted as respecting them as rights.
Our rights don't come from the Constitution though, they come from nature; the Constitution only protects are already pre-existing natural rights.
How do rights come from nature? Did a tree suddenly speak to you?
Okay, so do you think murder, theft, rape, etc. are acceptable?
Do you think they would be acceptable, even if laws were NOT in place against them?
No such thing as a "natural right." you can make a universalizing moral claim (and I often do), but that's not the same as a "natural" right
Morality is another argument altogether, but if I go out and attack or steal from someone, I am violating their rights as an individual.
yeah, I agree, but not their "natural rights"
edit: scratch that, I don't really believe in "rights." the action would be immoral however
Good edit. Rights are completely incompatible with your philosophy. And yet, the left are always prattling on about "rights" to health care, education, etc. We know what they really mean, that rights are what the state feigns to bestow upon the subservient public.
i cant think of a better answer than, yes? i cant be bothered to get in to a philosophy debate at 5am but i dont see whats inherently wrong with a social contract that exchanges taxation and all that entails with certain rights which may or may not be natural to a person anyway.
What's wrong, and what has always been wrong with the social contract, is that it involuntarily imposes itself upon individuals. And no, telling people to leave their home country is not a valid argument for implied consent, it's simply expressed extortion.
Most accept that this is an issue with the old social contract, but then again gaining explicit consent is pretty much unworkable. What alternative would you personally prefer?
On October 24 2012 13:02 turdburgler wrote: the great thing about posting on /r/politics around US election time is you can rack up 1000 karma in 1 day without even trying. man dem internet points so tasty.
On October 24 2012 13:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:53 sam!zdat wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:51 Swazi Spring wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:50 sam!zdat wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:47 Swazi Spring wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:46 Souma wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:45 Swazi Spring wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:43 BluePanther wrote: [quote]
Actually, there is no relation to the "right to life" and the right to bear arms. There is also no right to self-defense. There is also no right to private party or ownership of your labor. These things are not constitutionally based.
Actually, they are.
The right to bear arms is in the federal constitution and in almost every single state constitution. Additionally, the Constitution states that the government CANNOT take away one's life or property without due process, which can easily be interpretted as respecting them as rights.
Our rights don't come from the Constitution though, they come from nature; the Constitution only protects are already pre-existing natural rights.
How do rights come from nature? Did a tree suddenly speak to you?
Okay, so do you think murder, theft, rape, etc. are acceptable?
Do you think they would be acceptable, even if laws were NOT in place against them?
No such thing as a "natural right." you can make a universalizing moral claim (and I often do), but that's not the same as a "natural" right
Morality is another argument altogether, but if I go out and attack or steal from someone, I am violating their rights as an individual.
yeah, I agree, but not their "natural rights"
edit: scratch that, I don't really believe in "rights." the action would be immoral however
Good edit. Rights are completely incompatible with your philosophy. And yet, the left are always prattling on about "rights" to health care, education, etc. We know what they really mean, that rights are what the state feigns to bestow upon the subservient public.
i cant think of a better answer than, yes? i cant be bothered to get in to a philosophy debate at 5am but i dont see whats inherently wrong with a social contract that exchanges taxation and all that entails with certain rights which may or may not be natural to a person anyway.
What's wrong, and what has always been wrong with the social contract, is that it involuntarily imposes itself upon individuals. And no, telling people to leave their home country is not a valid argument for implied consent, it's simply expressed extortion.
would you agree theres a natural contract between a mother and child born from the biological need to continue the gene pool? would that then extend to the tribe as a means to secure strength against rival familes? family > tribe > village > country
if you accept a family has a natural contract to help each other based on the requirement coded in us all to survive you can extrapolate a social contract.
On October 24 2012 12:58 Souma wrote: iirc Congress decides how many seats should be available on the Supreme Court.
seriously? damn, I hope not. that was a good factoid. I thought I learned something about a president increasing size of SC in middle school or smth...
I just double-checked, and Congress does indeed decide how many justices can reside on the Supreme Court. The last time the court size was modified was in 1869.
On October 24 2012 12:58 Souma wrote: iirc Congress decides how many seats should be available on the Supreme Court.
seriously? damn, I hope not. that was a good factoid. I thought I learned something about a president increasing size of SC in middle school or smth...
I just double-checked, and Congress does indeed decide how many justices can reside on the Supreme Court. The last time the court size was modified was in 1869.
when you get down to it, doesnt congress decide everything in the US? since the constitution says the government gets its power from the people instead of god, the power 'trickles up' to the leadership from the people. rather than trickles down from god to the leader.
On October 24 2012 12:58 Souma wrote: iirc Congress decides how many seats should be available on the Supreme Court.
seriously? damn, I hope not. that was a good factoid. I thought I learned something about a president increasing size of SC in middle school or smth...
I just double-checked, and Congress does indeed decide how many justices can reside on the Supreme Court. The last time the court size was modified was in 1869.
when you get down to it, doesnt congress decide everything in the US?
Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times.
Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified.
On October 24 2012 12:28 turdburgler wrote: how can you claim obama is anti gun when all hes done is give out socialised guns to poor mexicans?
HAHAHA oh God that was good.
But really, has Obama even touched guns during his term?
He said he is going to ban "scary looking guns" and he did try to block a bill that would allow concealed carry on all government property (including parks). He knows that trying to push for gun control laws will only result in his losing the election.
I suggest you look at his record as a federal senator and a state legislator though and the various statements he made prior to running for president.
I have no doubt in my mind that Obama wants to slap on stricter gun control laws. Unfortunately he can't afford to so it's not really something gun lovers should fret about.
If he wins the election, what's to stop him from trying?
Also think obama will try to at least do something small on gun control. Its his last term (if he gets re-elected) and he has nothing to loose annymore, and he might want to leave another mark beside obama care. The public opinnion in the usa has also become more flexible on this subject it seems after the latest shooting sprees from young adults.
@ response next page: Yes the die hards will always be diehards, but i do feel (i could be completely wrong with this btw, its just an idea) that the moderate people who didnt care for guns or restrictions on them in the past, are now slowly turning more in favor of caring for it and wanting to have gun control.
On October 24 2012 13:02 turdburgler wrote: the great thing about posting on /r/politics around US election time is you can rack up 1000 karma in 1 day without even trying. man dem internet points so tasty.
On October 24 2012 13:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:53 sam!zdat wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:51 Swazi Spring wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:50 sam!zdat wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:47 Swazi Spring wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:46 Souma wrote:
On October 24 2012 12:45 Swazi Spring wrote: [quote] Actually, they are.
The right to bear arms is in the federal constitution and in almost every single state constitution. Additionally, the Constitution states that the government CANNOT take away one's life or property without due process, which can easily be interpretted as respecting them as rights.
Our rights don't come from the Constitution though, they come from nature; the Constitution only protects are already pre-existing natural rights.
How do rights come from nature? Did a tree suddenly speak to you?
Okay, so do you think murder, theft, rape, etc. are acceptable?
Do you think they would be acceptable, even if laws were NOT in place against them?
No such thing as a "natural right." you can make a universalizing moral claim (and I often do), but that's not the same as a "natural" right
Morality is another argument altogether, but if I go out and attack or steal from someone, I am violating their rights as an individual.
yeah, I agree, but not their "natural rights"
edit: scratch that, I don't really believe in "rights." the action would be immoral however
Good edit. Rights are completely incompatible with your philosophy. And yet, the left are always prattling on about "rights" to health care, education, etc. We know what they really mean, that rights are what the state feigns to bestow upon the subservient public.
i cant think of a better answer than, yes? i cant be bothered to get in to a philosophy debate at 5am but i dont see whats inherently wrong with a social contract that exchanges taxation and all that entails with certain rights which may or may not be natural to a person anyway.
What's wrong, and what has always been wrong with the social contract, is that it involuntarily imposes itself upon individuals. And no, telling people to leave their home country is not a valid argument for implied consent, it's simply expressed extortion.
would you agree theres a natural contract between a mother and child born from the biological need to continue the gene pool? would that then extend to the tribe as a means to secure strength against rival familes? family > tribe > village > country
if you accept a family has a natural contract to help each other based on the requirement coded in us all to survive you can extrapolate a social contract.
This logic breaks down as soon as you move beyond survival. Public education is a good thing, but it cannot be considered so necessary as to be called a "coded" or "biological" contract. A distinction must be made between coercion imposed by the environment, and coercion imposed by people.
EPT
