dasein Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Natural law implies a law that cannot be violated. If I'm holding an object and I let go of it, it falls. That's natural law. The fact that natural rights can be violated is irrelevant. A cat's nature is to have whiskers. You can cut the whiskers off, but it doesn't change anything about the nature of a cat. A person's nature consists of immutable rights, you can violate those rights, but it changes nothing with respect to the immutable attachment of the rights. Where there is no law against slavery, some perfectly rational people will make slaves of other perfectly rational human beings, or kill them or take their property. Which is precisely the point of delineating natural rights, which can not be violated by legitimate political power and legal rights which can be. Now the state can determine that a person has seceded natural rights by their actions. For example a murderer can be put to death for murder, or a thief deprived of property. Locke wouldn't like transfer payments though, I'm afraid. In any event, I see what's going on here, carry on. 1
zengirl Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 The fact that natural rights can be violated is irrelevant. A cat's nature is to have whiskers. You can cut the whiskers off, but it doesn't change anything about the nature of a cat. A person's nature consists of immutable rights, you can violate those rights, but it changes nothing with respect to the immutable attachment of the rights. Whiskers are a concrete reality. "Rights" are an abstract quality. The only reason people believe "all people have certain inalienable rights" is because various documents (written by people in forming governments and philosophies) state it! In fact, for awhile there, Americans totally didn't believe black people or women had the same writes as white people or men or that the rights of property owners who could read were the same as the rights of the poor and illiterate, despite our FFs stating so clearly that we had nature-given rights! Your analogy just doesn't work. It's more akin to saying "Cats have natural curiosity" and saying if a cat isn't curious, he still has that quality. You have to use an abstract with an abstract. 1
dasein Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Many of our public works and infrastructure was built during The Great Depression to get people back to work. "History lite" at work. Those projects were also, and primarily enacted as expediencies to buy votes. One of the greatest myths of leftist 20th century history is that FDR and socialist programs "pulled us out" of the Great Depression, and it is repeated ad nauseum. The recovery of the private sector and WW2 "pulled us out" of the Great Depression. They're very much wrapped up in concepts like Social Security---as they all came from the same place. And that is relevant how? Jack the Ripper and Winston Churchill "came from the same place." The thing about progress is, in 99% of cases, government has absolutely nothing to do with it, other than to -impede- it and burden it with unnecessary costs and corruption. And no, entitlements don't cause economic growth either, though there's no proof they hinder it -- About 47% of the federal budget is spent on social security and medicare alone. Believe me, you don't want to know what raw dollar amount that represents on a yearly basis. Notwithstanding the costs to administer those programs, we have successfully bred a nation of dependent sheeple on the backs of the productive elements of society. If you don't see how taking money out of the productive engine of society (younger individuals, small business, etc.) and reallocating it to an unproductive rathole, you are beyond hope. Certain very few industries, such as healthcare, become falsely enriched. Everything else flounders and stagnates, young people can't find good jobs and live in effective poverty while 80 y.o.s get $50,000 surgeries that may prolong their lives a year or two. Eventually we go bankrupt trying to force too few payors to support too many payees. It is happening right now, and may be too late already. what they do is provide a cushion for people from absolute poverty, hunger, and ruin. I believe that protecting someone from hunger or poor health (by providing basic needs and healthcare to people who cannot afford it, particularly the very old or very young who need our help most) is covered by basic human rights. You may disagree, of course. That's fine, charities, communities and families seemed to handle those issues well before transfer payments, and if you disagree, it's on you to produce actual starvation numbers, not "Johnny doesn't know where his next meal is coming from," but rather statistics of U.S. citizens who actually died of privation over the last 150 years. Those numbers seem to be absent from most statist history books for some reason. Real poverty hasn't been a problem in this country for a long, long time, and that happy state has everything to do with technological innovation and capitalism and nothing to do with government. Are we breeding too many children? absolutely, and that is a function of a state that pays people who have no business reproducing to do so... if you can't buy enough votes from people already in existence, get them breeding more votes. Moreover, in the exploding transfer payment environment of the last 70 years, the hue and cry goes out for more and more, I heard one such canard on the radio the other day, that 700,000 children in my home state were in danger of starvation, in a state with a total population of 9 million:lmao:. That's an utter fabrication, and just a single example of the lying depths the left will go to forward its agenda of breeding more thoroughly dependent votes.
Taramere Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 In any event, I see what's going on here, carry on. It sounds as though you perceive some sort of agenda in my views on this. Whatever it is, evidently the highly respected jurisprudence professor who marked my submissions on this subject when I studied it all those years ago must have missed it. Imagine that.
dasein Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Whiskers are a concrete reality. "Rights" are an abstract quality. So what? Reason, senses, perception, all abstract or partially abstract qualities. The nature of a thing may be defined as containing "abstract" as well as concrete qualities. Some people define a human being as having a "soul" at its essence, and some define a human being as having "natural rights." The analogy was apt, specifically in its purpose of countering the ridiculous notion that if rights may be taken away, somehow they never existed in the first place. The only reason people believe "all people have certain inalienable rights" is because various documents (written by people in forming governments and philosophies) state it! The only reason people believe "a cat is a cat" is because various documents (written by people classifying animals) state it! Your point again? In fact, for awhile there, Americans totally didn't believe black people or women had the same writes as white people or men or that the rights of property owners who could read were the same as the rights of the poor and illiterate, despite our FFs stating so clearly that we had nature-given rights! More history lite at work: 1. From day one of slavery in the U.S., there were MANY very vocal critics of it, so the statement "Americans totally didn't believe black people or women had the same rights as white people" is inaccurate. 2. From the ratification of the Constitution to the vesting of voting rights for white non property owning males took some time, longer for women and blacks. The primary reason for this, as opposed to the history lite version of "rich, white, slaveowning founding fathers protecting their illegitimate interests and oppressing everyone else," is that throughout that whole period, there still existed a very vocal, politically powerful segment of the American citizenry who favored -monarchy-. Those believed that there should be no voting at all, no representative legislature at all, only legal rights vested solely in the king, that if sovereignty were vested in the people, mob rule and chaos would result, and that Washington should be crowned the new king instead of some radical new "foolhardy" experiment undertaken. The American Constitutional experiment was new and untried. When they set off the first atomic bomb, no one knew for certain that a chain reaction wouldn't result and destroy the entire Earth. Apprehension about an untried form of government was intense in similar ways, and it was reasonable that they should have such apprehensions. Perhaps the most obnoxious aspect of leftishist "history lite" is that it persists in viewing the world through "expediency colored glasses," of the "now," making assumptions about life then, ethics then, knowledge then, in comparison to our own times, that simply weren't the case. They lived in an entirely different world, yet history lite analyzes that world as if it happened ten years ago because its proponents seek unquestioning, gullible indoctrinees who will lazily accept expediency history as fact and won't take the time to learn the truth.
dasein Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 It sounds as though you perceive some sort of agenda in my views on this. Nope I thought you had me on ignore, as you have stated you were going to several times here on LS, so couldn't see my posts on natural law, hence the "I see what's going on here."
EasyHeart Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 I am a conscientious objector in the Gender Wars.
zengirl Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 "History lite" at work. Those projects were also, and primarily enacted as expediencies to buy votes. One of the greatest myths of leftist 20th century history is that FDR and socialist programs "pulled us out" of the Great Depression, and it is repeated ad nauseum. The recovery of the private sector and WW2 "pulled us out" of the Great Depression. History indicates both things helped, really. I love history, so it's not a matter of me not knowing (in fact your view seems more "history lite" to me -- it's the one I hear more from people who never even know about the wide span of Public Works). Roosevelt didn't buy votes any more than any other President has, really. I'm not claiming he was the greatest man to ever live but his plans worked. Sure, he was bolstered by WWII production, but his policies were helping even before that was a factor. It's clear you and I disagree on just about every major political issue, and I find arguing with people as intolerant to other views as you present yourself to be on here to be pointless. What would be the use? Personally, I think the way you present your ideas here is too needlessly combative and intolerant for much conversation to be had. And I'm in too good a mood for fighting with those who've no interest in helping others or forming a new Great Society. *shrugs* The "history lite" attack phrase is new, of course, but the same as most of your attacks. Needlessly combative and untrue. So what? Reason, senses, perception, all abstract or partially abstract qualities. The nature of a thing may be defined as containing "abstract" as well as concrete qualities. Some people define a human being as having a "soul" at its essence, and some define a human being as having "natural rights." Science doesn't define a human being as having a soul any more than it defines a cat as having one. By selecting "whiskers," a scientifically valid means to categorize a cat (not by themselves, of course) and a concrete thing, you selected something that was a poor analogy. But I already said that and you spouted lots more irrelevance to your argument. My arguments remain unchanged. You've not really debated them on their merits anyway.
dasein Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 My arguments remain unchanged. You've not really debated them on their merits anyway. Fine with me, readers can decide for themselves.
Recommended Posts