NationStates

Trotskylvania wrote:

New Conway wrote:
well, i would tell you that the government does not give people rights, only privileges, and that rights are something we are all born with that the government can only take away. I'll leave it at that.

Noted classic liberal Jeremy Bentham called this attitude "nonsense upon stilts".

There are no natural rights, unless you believe that there is a God on high who confers a superior law upon man that all are bound to.

So you can go play in your castle of make believe all you want, the rest of us are working with the understanding that rights are simply the privileges conferred on parties by either law or contract.

I'm atheist, and I am born with basic rights that no government can take away.

Trotskylvania wrote:

New Conway wrote:You can't tell me what to do!

Try as you might, you can't bring something that was killed by the dialectic of history back to life.

Pfft, dialectic of history. I don't agree with Marxism's teleological view of history or necessarily with its goals but I have to hand it to them for having some awesome vocabulary.

Cvtopia wrote:

Trotskylvania wrote:Noted classic liberal Jeremy Bentham called this attitude "nonsense upon stilts".

There are no natural rights, unless you believe that there is a God on high who confers a superior law upon man that all are bound to.

So you can go play in your castle of make believe all you want, the rest of us are working with the understanding that rights are simply the privileges conferred on parties by either law or contract.

I'm atheist, and I am born with basic rights that no government can take away.

Tell me which of them they can't take away.

I voted for Modern Liberal, whatever that means.

Social democratic parties and the similarly named are lovely, aside from their tendencies to tax exorbitantly to buy things for us we usually don't need, rather than letting everyone 'pay as they go.' Kind of like that obscenely rich uncle who leaves you a prize-winning oversized cabbage in his will. Just me..?

Cvtopia wrote:

Trotskylvania wrote:Noted classic liberal Jeremy Bentham called this attitude "nonsense upon stilts".

There are no natural rights, unless you believe that there is a God on high who confers a superior law upon man that all are bound to.

So you can go play in your castle of make believe all you want, the rest of us are working with the understanding that rights are simply the privileges conferred on parties by either law or contract.

I'm atheist, and I am born with basic rights that no government can take away.

And where do these rights come from? It is simply intellectually dishonest to say that you have rights that are somehow independent from and prior to society.

Want all you wish for life, liberty and property, wanting these things does not mean you have a right to them. And no matter how much we might find these things innately valued, and think that they ought to be respected, that doesn't make them rights. Rights can only be established by law or compact.

Barbary Bay wrote:I voted for Modern Liberal, whatever that means.

Social democratic parties and the similarly named are lovely, aside from their tendencies to tax exorbitantly to buy things for us we usually don't need, rather than letting everyone 'pay as they go.' Kind of like that obscenely rich uncle who leaves you a prize-winning oversized cabbage in his will. Just me..?

Here's a definition of Modern Liberalism I found: The belief that liberalism should include a social foundation. It differs from classical liberalism in that it believes the legitimate role of the state includes addressing economic and social issues such as welfare, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil and political rights.

EnragedMaldivians wrote:

Cvtopia wrote:I'm atheist, and I am born with basic rights that no government can take away.

Tell me which of them they can't take away.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
--From the Declaration of Independence, before the US went batshit statist

I am a market socialist and a soviet democrat.

Cvtopia wrote:

EnragedMaldivians wrote:
Tell me which of them they can't take away.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
--From the Declaration of Independence, before the US went batshit statist

Unless you're not a citizen of the USA.

Cvtopia wrote:

EnragedMaldivians wrote:
Tell me which of them they can't take away.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
--From the Declaration of Independence, before the US went batshit statist

The government can shoot you, restrict your freedoms and connive to make you extremely miserable if they wanted to. Rights can be given and taken away.

You can argue a normative position that you should have these rights but to assert that you have them by virtue of existence rather than them being conferred upon you by law is simply not true.

Barbary Bay wrote:

Cvtopia wrote:"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
--From the Declaration of Independence, before the US went batshit statist

Unless you're not a citizen of the USA.

It's just a great quote that applies everywhere.

Cvtopia wrote:

EnragedMaldivians wrote:
Tell me which of them they can't take away.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
--From the Declaration of Independence, before the US went batshit statist

Those words weren't worth the ink that was used to write them at the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence.

There were over a million men, women and children in a situation of perpetual slavery, to be bought and sold as chattel, who endured conditions on the slave plantations that were so horrific that the monarchs of Europe, accustomed to treating people as things, thought it was barbaric. And those American founding fathers, no sooner had they won the independence, turned their guns on the poor and dispossed at home who wanted a say in government in the new United States. Those rebels who dared to demand no taxation without the right to vote same as any gentleman were put down and hanged as traitors.

The states in those days held the power the life and death over most citizens like the Sword of Damocles, and they used it with great relish. Do not call the modern US "batshit statist" and then put those tyrants on a pedestal.

EnragedMaldivians wrote:

Cvtopia wrote:"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
--From the Declaration of Independence, before the US went batshit statist

The government can shoot you, restrict your freedoms and connive to make you extremely miserable if they wanted to. Rights can be given and taken away.

You can argue a normative position that you should have these rights but to assert that you have them by virtue of existence rather than them being conferred upon you by law is simply not true.

If the government can shoot me, restrict me freedoms and connive to make me extremely miserable, I'm not recognizing that government as having legitimate authority over me.

Cvtopia wrote:

EnragedMaldivians wrote:
The government can shoot you, restrict your freedoms and connive to make you extremely miserable if they wanted to. Rights can be given and taken away.

You can argue a normative position that you should have these rights but to assert that you have them by virtue of existence rather than them being conferred upon you by law is simply not true.

If the government can shoot me, restrict me freedoms and connive to make me extremely miserable, I'm not recognizing that government as having legitimate authority over me.

A government that cannot do those things cannot protect you from others who would conspire to harm you. Fuck, any institution that doesn't have coercive powers that can potentially be used on you can't protect your or the rest of society from antisocial elements.

Trotskylvania wrote:

Cvtopia wrote:If the government can shoot me, restrict me freedoms and connive to make me extremely miserable, I'm not recognizing that government as having legitimate authority over me.

A government that cannot do those things cannot protect you from others who would conspire to harm you. Fuck, any institution that doesn't have coercive powers that can potentially be used on you can't protect your or the rest of society from antisocial elements.

And what might these "antisocial elements" be? People you don't like?

Trotskylvania wrote:

Cvtopia wrote:If the government can shoot me, restrict me freedoms and connive to make me extremely miserable, I'm not recognizing that government as having legitimate authority over me.

A government that cannot do those things cannot protect you from others who would conspire to harm you. Fuck, any institution that doesn't have coercive powers that can potentially be used on you can't protect your or the rest of society from antisocial elements.

Antisocial elements?
Those who choose to disagree with society I am guessing?

Government is the weapon of the majority, and the sworn enemy of the minority.
It has never defended anyone from the unjustified.

Modern Liberal.

Cvtopia wrote:

Trotskylvania wrote:A government that cannot do those things cannot protect you from others who would conspire to harm you. Fuck, any institution that doesn't have coercive powers that can potentially be used on you can't protect your or the rest of society from antisocial elements.

And what might these "antisocial elements" be? People you don't like?

Violent criminals, political extremists, religious extremists, etc.

I'm an optimist, but there are a LOT of batshit insane people in the world.

Moving Forward Inc wrote:

Trotskylvania";p="<a href="tel:12266788">12266788</a> wrote:A government that cannot do those things cannot protect you from others who would conspire to harm you. Fuck, any institution that doesn't have coercive powers that can potentially be used on you can't protect your or the rest of society from antisocial elements.

Antisocial elements?
Those who choose to disagree with society I am guessing?

Government is the weapon of the majority, and the sworn enemy of the minority.
It has never defended anyone from the unjustified.

Mmm, hmm. So, all those government-funded departments like law-enforcement and national defense have NEVER defended the just from the unjust?

Gorgashia wrote:

Cvtopia wrote:And what might these "antisocial elements" be? People you don't like?

Violent criminals, political extremists, religious extremists, etc.

I'm an optimist, but there are a LOT of batshit insane people in the world.

Moving Forward Inc wrote:Antisocial elements?
Those who choose to disagree with society I am guessing?

Government is the weapon of the majority, and the sworn enemy of the minority.
It has never defended anyone from the unjustified.

Mmm, hmm. So, all those government-funded departments like law-enforcement and national defense have NEVER defended the just from the unjust?

Violent criminals: when seconds matter, the police are minutes away.
Political & religious extremists: the right to free speech and expression is universal. No matter how batshit crazy or stupid you are.

Gorgashia wrote:

Moving Forward Inc wrote:Antisocial elements?
Those who choose to disagree with society I am guessing?

Government is the weapon of the majority, and the sworn enemy of the minority.
It has never defended anyone from the unjustified.

Mmm, hmm. So, all those government-funded departments like law-enforcement and national defense have NEVER defended the just from the unjust?

Correct.
Violent criminals (and the like) often have a good nature.

Cvtopia wrote:

Gorgashia wrote:
Violent criminals, political extremists, religious extremists, etc.

I'm an optimist, but there are a LOT of batshit insane people in the world.



Mmm, hmm. So, all those government-funded departments like law-enforcement and national defense have NEVER defended the just from the unjust?

Violent criminals: when seconds matter, the police are minutes away.
Political & religious extremists: the right to free speech and expression is universal. No matter how batshit crazy or stupid you are.

Police still provide a good deterrence.

Should I even count all the men that used WORDS to incite violence? There have been a lot and a lot of them have been disturbingly successful.

Cvtopia wrote:

Trotskylvania wrote:A government that cannot do those things cannot protect you from others who would conspire to harm you. Fuck, any institution that doesn't have coercive powers that can potentially be used on you can't protect your or the rest of society from antisocial elements.

And what might these "antisocial elements" be? People you don't like?

Murderers, thieves, rapists, con artists, embezzlers, shucksters, brigands, etc. etc.

You know, those people who will harm others to get what they want. You can't deal with them without coercion.

Moving Forward Inc wrote:

Trotskylvania wrote:A government that cannot do those things cannot protect you from others who would conspire to harm you. Fuck, any institution that doesn't have coercive powers that can potentially be used on you can't protect your or the rest of society from antisocial elements.

Antisocial elements?
Those who choose to disagree with society I am guessing?

Government is the weapon of the majority, and the sworn enemy of the minority.
It has never defended anyone from the unjustified.

Yes, I'm sure that rapist who was apprehended, tried and convicted by the government really was justified in raping someone.

Do you even read the shit you type, or do you just vomit it up without thinking?

Gorgashia wrote:

Cvtopia wrote:
Violent criminals: when seconds matter, the police are minutes away.
Political & religious extremists: the right to free speech and expression is universal. No matter how batshit crazy or stupid you are.

Police still provide a good deterrence.

Should I even count all the men that used WORDS to incite violence? There have been a lot and a lot of them have been disturbingly successful.

Incitement of violence is not the same as violence. Freedom of speech is universal, no matter how psychotic or abhorrent the opinion being expressed.

I am a communal anarchist. I differentiate this from Marxist derived variants as it draws from sources from theories other than communism based theories and incorporates elements of other schools of thought as well.It isn't even primarily derived from Marxist thought though comparisons can be made.

Moving Forward Inc wrote:

Gorgashia wrote:


Mmm, hmm. So, all those government-funded departments like law-enforcement and national defense have NEVER defended the just from the unjust?

Correct.
Violent criminals (and the like) often have a good nature.

They may have good nature, but that doesn't mean they are justified.