|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Mar 16, 2006 22:28:56 GMT -5
2. NonE Nothing has changed my belief in owning nothing thus far. People want or have some intrinsic need to believe in the concept of ownership, even when it fly's in the face of equal rights. I am of the opinion that nobody has superior right over another on this planet. I am also of the opinion that each person deserves the same respect for privacy and personal space that they would expect for themselves (that is from a normal rational human being). Ownership isn't a necessity to exist, in fact it is a hindrance to those that cannot afford to own. My belief is every person on the planet deserves shelter and it should be the job of each of us to help that into existence. That is a positive or pro-life position where ownership creates a negative influence on what should be a pro-life attitude. Ownership to me says to those that don't own. "I've got mine, who cares about you." >>> In turn this creates resentment and causes friction between the owners and non-owners. It is a negative position that has caused war, poverty, stratification of society and apathy <<< toward our fellow passengers on this big blue rock. Saying "[ownership] creates resentment and causes friction" etc. is an assertion without facts. While we observe these emotional, irrational reactions all around us, to blame it on the *concept* of ownership is tantamount to dismissing Islam's beliefs because of the actions of those who claim to be "faithful" to its principles. Rational people can choose to *not* react in such ways you mention. If anything, you verge on a Vulcanesque condemnation of humanity's emotionalism itself, the effect instead of the alleged cause (could just as easily be fluoride, chemtrails, TV hypnosis, sexual repression, or the prevalence of hyper-statist thought i.e. ends-justify-means war-mongerinq forced-altruistic groupthink!) You rightfully denounce and deny "superior right over [others]" - however you seem to equate this with "right to own fruit of your labour". That is almost exactly what Marxists say when denouncing classism, then describing capitalism as "exploitation of the have-nots my the haves". My paraphrases, but you get the idea. No right to own anything but your body? (If even that?) How, then, does your conscience not scream out in response to an evil violation every time you eat an apple, or even ingest one swallow of water! What right do you thus have to exploit nature in such a way! Isn't your utilization of these elements of "nature" in effect taking away *every other individual's* ability, opportunity, "right" to use them to fulfill their survival needs? Methinks the root conflict on this topic is not individualism vs. collectivism, or even choice & consent vs. forced egalitarianism & violence... Perhaps it's a fundamental belief -- nay, passionate *faith* -- in either SCARCITY (hence *necessity* of destructive competition!) or ABUNDANCE (construltive productivity and progressive gain through co-operation!). -Isn't that what is really behind a lot of your examples? And mine? |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Mar 16, 2006 22:30:41 GMT -5
3. Are we or are we not responsible for our actions? If we are responsible for our actions then we are also responsible for our inactions. If the drunk is homeless because he does not want to work or be a productive person in society then he is responsible for his homelessness. Are we as a society not responsible for his homelessness as well? Does that mean he is a throw away person? If the answer is yes, then that is a social breakdown proving the non-functionality of the societal concept. If the answer is no; then society has taken on some of his responsibility for his life and he has conceded some of his freedom of choice to society. If society does not help him is society not responsible for its inactions? Example: Your friend has a drinking problem. You and he are out one evening and your friend proceeds to attempt the first ever blood for alcohol transfusion. Your friend is obviously unable to make responsible decisions inebriated as he is. Are you now responsibility free for him getting behind the wheel of a car? Are you now un-responsible for him walking out into traffic in this condition? Have you no responsibility for anything that may come of his impaired state? You know and can extrapolate the possibilities that can happen with him in that condition. You are making a conscious choice to walk away from that scenario and washing your hands of the whole thing. Interesting choice. Have you not allowed whatever consequences to unfold by actively choosing to ignore or not get involved with your friends problem? Knowing that bit of information; do you or do you not have a responsibility to act? ... There will always be a percentile that cannot function regardless of personal responsibility. Are these people throw away? Under the present system that appears to be the case, which is very unsociable and anti-societal. ... If society, had, on the other hand, attempted to help me with my problems, opened up avenues, allowed me access to employment and self-respect (regardless of my problems) I could be positively impacted and want to be a part of your society and aid in its support. So now my question to you is...Is it just to be irresponsible for the lowest members of your society? What if it's a drug addict? What if it is a war veteran who was injured protecting your society? Extrapolate and you will find any scenario can either be handled with violence or with love and respect for human life and its fragilities. Reverse the circumstances and place your self in the place of the drunk, druggie, veteran, destitute, jobless, etc, etc, etc. If society ignores you what are your options? Do you feel it is just to be ignored, pushed around by societies armed guards and thrown into a concrete and iron bar hotel? Obviously, a resounding "YES" is implied in the current society. Okay, is being responsible for your fellow human beings slavery? I would have to say no but you might see it differently. You might think it is a burden you shouldn't have to shoulder. Is anybody sticking a gun in your face to make you be responsible for your fellow beings? In the present system yes it is. Why? Because nobody is doing it without being forced for the most part. They got theirs and really don't care about you. To top it off they have the audacity to complain about you drunks, druggies, veterans, mentally and physically impaired losers (to quote someone earlier in this thread). So the answer in this society is to ignore, imprison, shuttle out of sight, or chastise those that have problems. Instead of empowering them through support, inclusion and empathy toward their personal problems we today choose to fault them for it and get pissed off that the society that we choose to live in makes us responsible against our will. Which is the better world NonE and Denison. Anti-social society or socially inclusive and empowering society? Either way it implies socialism in one form or another. Someone else's need does not justify a claim on my life, even if the circumstances are reversed. I have no claim on anyone's life; nor do you have a claim on mine. So are we justified in doing nothing for those who are not so fortunate? Your posting I partly-quoted above (and yes, I read and *re-read* it all) appears to me riddled with numerous logical errors, especially the fallacy of "false dilemma/dichotomy" (quite a few times), and from what I can see Denizen said nothing about you *being* a socialist -- I noticed that it was nonEntity, who asked if *you* "see any difference between your beliefs and social*ism*". That is not name-calling by any stretch of the imagination (unless inferred i.e. speculation re. motive). But I don't think that's the primary thing I want to respond to. ...It seems to me that you use the word "choice" but seem to identify only one side of the "to do/to not do" coin as morally respectable. You habitually use extreme examples ("extrapolat[ing]", etc.) but you rarely (if ever) mention the extreme results of your beliefs: forced altruism, where "society" initiates violence on those who *may* be able to "be [our] brother's keeper"... so they *are*.  If I freely *choose* to "be my brother's keeper" so be it, "society" is better off, etc. etc. And I thus am responsible for following through on my promise to assist - if I failed whether through inaction or malice or accident, I would then be "irresponsible", as you say. But "free to choose" is a misnomer -- indeed a myth, a *non-entity*, if I am not equally "free to *not* choose". But in *that* case,my inaction would me un-condemnable, for I would then be *non-responsible*. Not irresponsible. Big difference; only the former case involves accountability, liability, culpability. Actual harm. PS: Be careful, for the word "can" (e.g. "can help", "can love") is not the same as "should"... let alone "must, by force".  PPS: Inaction is *always* justified; it is by definition peaceful i.e. *not causing harm*. Feeling sympathy for another's suffering is natural (6+ Billion of them, suffering in one way or another!)... Feeling guilt for not curing the suffering (of all 6 Billion, or "only" a few million or even thousand) would be unhealthy, and emotionally/mentally crippling -- consider the last helicopters out of Saigon, or the over-filled Titanic lifeboats, as vivid examples... You can't help everybody, but you *can* (and can *choose to*) help somebody. Choose.  |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Mar 16, 2006 22:30:53 GMT -5
"Am i not correct in saying that you can hold me, as outside of you, to an obligation when it comes to what we hold equally as to behavior?"
Nope. Not correct. I hope that you might treat me respectfully, but I'm a fool if I don't also recognize that an armed society is a polite society. If you threaten me I will attempt to defend myself. This does not show that I have any "rights," it simply shows that I'm a human and seek to continue being a human and not worm food.
I would much prefer that you treat me respectfully than that I have to resort to force to defend myself, but I probably will resort to force if I can and if I also can see where the use of force will gain me security from your depradations. Sadly, this is not the case with a well organized criminal group like the mafia or the government. One cannot defeat superior force with inferior force.* In such a case it is wiser to choose another method of attempting to avoid forceful intervention with one's life. One can claim "rights" all day and night and that will not stop such depradations. Reality does not respect the concept of "rights."
So "rights" is a useful concept when we have people who wish to treat each other respectfully, but is totally worthless, if not counterproductive, when attempting to protect one's self from serious real dangers.
Humans are social animals. This is beneficial when we are not operating out of fear. We seek community. When in this mode the idea of "rights" can be beneficial in the mutual path towards conflict resolution, but it only applies when all parties seek to honor the concept.
It is a concept, not a law of reality like gravity. The "right to life" will not stop a fist or a bullet.
- NonE
* I edited and rephrased this sentence.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Mar 17, 2006 1:08:36 GMT -5
However... :-\ He could believe all he wants but the minute he picked up the FDA/Congressional cannon he became a criminal and a tyrant for whom I have no respect. When we talk about ownership, I think we are discussing the wrong issue. Here is the discussion redirected into action/consequence cause/effect format.
>>> When you are talking about preventing others from accessing basic necessities of life by force who otherwise have done you no harm, that is a problem. Am I now justified to take . . . by force if necessary? <<<
When you talk of taking from others the basic necessities of life by force who otherwise have done you no harm and collected such things by their own effort, that is a problem. Am I now justified to defend . . . by force if necessary? I don't care what you call it. If you initiate force to prevent me from accessing basic necessities, then I will respond. If you initiate force to take something from me I require I will respond. If instead you offer to trade something in hand peacefully then we are both better off. Whoa, slow down pardner! Let's think about where that kind of thinking (>>> this part <<<) eventually leads... :-\ Would you please tell me how, factually, the first thing you say above is different than the infamous "Law Of Necessity"? Indeed, isn't the same principle recorded in a certain collectivist (and unquestionably anti-life) document with a title beginning "The Ten Planks..."? Those who "NEED" are therefore entitled to take from those who "HAVE"? Isn't that the core principle behind your statement? Fact: You need water to survive. Rare is a human body that can survive 3 days without discorporating (there's a reference for fans of "Stranger In A Strange Land"  ). So let's say I have the foresight to store extra water for me and my family, say in bottles I carry with me at all times (I hand-stitched a ginormous backpack for each of us, for that very purpose). You, a stranger, walk by -- literally dying of thirst (it's hour # 71 of 72). You get my attention, and weakl request a voluntary offering; I look at my children and the parched dirt around us and therefore do not consent, and choose to politely deny your request. What now? What action do you justify by your "necessity"? Further, if a homeless man takes my sandwich from me, is he not implying he knows I am not myself near death by starvation? Or that, even if we *both* are on the verge of passing out due to hunger, then his continuing existence as a living man is more crucial, more valuable, than mine? While I may *choose* to feed him -- to assist him in meeting base survival needs -- nobody (not even collectivist, forced-altruism "legislators") would claim I am *obligated* to do so. Nor would any sane mind conclude that I am liable, factually culpable, if he dies of starvation. My choice to not assist him in meeting his needs is *not* equivalent to PREVENTING him from meeting those needs! Famous I.T. aphorism: "Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."  Am I correct here, by identifyinq the first statement above as collectivism-in-disguise? (Althouqh surely it was an accident, i.e. the premise was just not carried through to its logical consequences.) PS: of course, no offence intended -- Sagas nor anyone else... :-\ Obviously I have failed in attempting to communicate my ideas my good Doctor Dirt. And although I may have inadvertently loosed collectivism in disguise I'm sure none here who know me would accuse me of being a collectivist, and that was not my intent either. I was attempting to redirect the discussion from the same ole "ownership is a good idea / ownership is a bad idea / stupid people . . . ownership is an idea . . . go native" discussion that has raged for the last several months and has really seemed to do nothing but consume keyboard time to something more productive like examining actions and reactions cause effect etc. so we could ultimately determine whether force and control over others has any any affect regardless of whether we think we own anything or not. I can see Tharrin and Lazer's points. In some ways I agree with them. If I had to choose between what we have today ( States) or a native american way of organizing and doing things I think I would choose the latter but that is the same as saying if I had my choice of government of today or 1789 I'd take the latter. It's just not going to happen; however, that does not mean we have to wait for some magical force to change things either. After listening to Marc for a while and re-reading Thomas Paine it is correct when he says that shortly after the "Idea of Monarchy" was rejected that they began to fall all over europe. Thomas Paine was instrumental in helping people to see the issue and change their minds. I think we need do the same instead of wait for some magical moment that may or may never come to fruition. Some have made good points that the ownership model will result in what we have today, I tend to think that the lack of respect for others and unwillingness to see ones own part in the acts of the violence/control model has more to do with the current state of affairs than much anything else. In your example my good doctor Let's say I am the ignoramus who wandered into the desert without planning. Well I can beg or offer to trade and you can refuse. Well I guess I die of stupidity because you did not prevent me from making and taking my own water with me into the desert. That is my own fault. You could choose to help me or not but you have not prevented me from acquiring a basic necessity of life unless you tied me ankle first to a camel at gunpoint with it's nose aimed into the desert . . . well then there might be an issue. Let me try and explain this way. I stop for a while on an area of ground no one else is on or has claimed. Whether ownership is accepted by the society we are talking about or not is irrelevant. I soon realize I need some water so I start digging a well. Soon someone I do not know who does not know me neither of us has harmed one another previously, moseys on by tells me I can't do that and proceeds to actively prevent me from digging a well. You are now in the act of preventing me from maintaining my life . . . can I now do something or must I simply sit back and die? Let's say I acquired a spot of ground by purchase from a previous claimants, claimants, claim. Ownership is a generally accepted idea of society. I start digging the well. The county Mountie comes by says you can't do that I'll arrest you. How is this any different whether ownership is or is not something the society is based upon? Facts are I still have someone preventing me from maintaining my own life through no fault or injury to another of my own actions. That is the simple of my queries you took issue with, which I now think were worded poorly and not communicated well. I think everyone who exists has an inherent right to exist and continue and maintain their existence simply because they exist; however, no one owes a right or duty to anyone else to support their existence, nor can claim any power or authority or justification to hinder or take or prevent continuing that existence from another. Knowing that not everyone will agree with me my beliefs do not require them to believe what I believe. The Only requirement is that others leave me alone and not interfere with me as I would reciprocate. If another wishes to interfere with me then I have many options but don't interfere too much or you might wind up dead. That's just nature. I also think that whatever one mixes their life force, their mental capacity, and blood, sweat, labor with has an inherent power to choose the disposition of. Heck If I choose to sell the labor of my body for paper and ink then that is fine as well, but for someone to come in force and claim they have a "right" to a portion of it at the barrel of a gun or any other equally asinine reason is insanity. I know why people refuse to see through the scam though, it is because it is difficult to admit how one was a part of perpetuating the problem. In some ways I still am part of the problem; however I try to make voluntary trades where possible, so yea I support a grey or black or whatever else one wants to call a FREE MARKET. I still don't know if you comprehend, but what I am attempting to explain is that often some have said well people in cities have to pay for water and water is a basic necessity. Well I think that even in a non-ownership model if people lived in cities, 1 they would either be responsible for it them selves or find ways to share and trade with others . . . in ways that may look suspiciously like paying for water. As for the homeless man, well sanity does seem to be the problem. That is not a commodity of abundance in legal-land. I am familiar with the poor planning aphorism. The rest of it goes; however we can solve your problem, it will take 2 years and 2 million dollars . . . from your budget not ours.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Mar 17, 2006 1:19:36 GMT -5
After re-reading this thread again and attempting to clarify an idea I obviously miscomunicated as the good Doctor Dirt took it for something out of that wonderful collectivist economists theory Something NonE said, bout what I said makes me think . . . hmmm . . . NonE, might be right. I never thought of it like that, there really isn't any rules, and here we folks are bein called anarchists and all, discussin rules and behavior of a natural order sort that might promote real liberty. But the dreaded state think and promote the view we be the bad guyz that don't want no rules. Hmmmmm  For Dvishnu's sanity we're gonna have to get this straightenend out cause the big D likes da straight lines. |
|
|
|
Post by dvishnu on Mar 17, 2006 10:26:49 GMT -5
Hey!!!! What's wrong with straight lines? What are you? Some kinda weirdo or sumtin?  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Mar 17, 2006 13:33:32 GMT -5
PS: re. the lengthy post from Tharrin re. " Say buddy can you spare a dime" , "Help the helpless, or your inaction is *irresponsibility* and you value the priceless as valueless!" etc. - Albert J. Nock ( Our Enemy The State, 1935.) - - - You know, I mention KATRINA up above... Consider though, how much reason there is to still have hope in the human spirit, in the natural desire to help others (without being forced!) Despite the increasingly insane degree of taxation, despite the prevalent attitude of "NIMBY" and "report your suspicious neighbour to the Freedom Corps for re-eduction", "watching Reality TV is more exciting than interacting with Real People", etc. DESPITE all that, who came through to help the people of New Orleans and others? Which power -- SOCIAL or STATE -- prevented the other from exercising assistance? "Be your brother's keeper, but *only* do it under the officially sanctioned licensed approved state-certificate Government Umbrella Of Emergency Services!" ::gag:: Social power vs. State power. 'Nuff said. ---(cleaned up []quote[] thanks to nonEntity's "spank" )--- |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Mar 17, 2006 14:00:59 GMT -5
Darren, The generally accepted manner of inserting editor's comments into a quoted text so as to make clear that which is the author's and that which is the editor's is to use square brackets [editor's comments here]. Any emphasis placed in the text are also noted thusly [emphasis added] or [emphasis in original] otherwise you are doing your readers a disservice when I'm sure that is not your intent. It is frequently impossible for me to read something that you have "quoted" and have any clear idea what part is the quote and what part is your commentary upon that quote. Consider yourself properly spanked! - NonE |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Mar 17, 2006 16:48:08 GMT -5
Tharrin – it would appear that you do NOT propose coercion. I can only see two possible ways human beings can deal with one another: Voluntarily or non-voluntarily. Your vision seems to require some other (third) way? If you can identify a third way please clue us in. I can't say that I see his "way" as some "other/third way"; rather, I see it as quite voluntary. He is simply reasoning, as to offer reason. (imho) Thus, if it is valid reasoning, it will voluntaryily be accepted/acted upon by another/others; meanwhile, those that do accept it, live life by it regardless and lets the others live theirs. 2i2 |
|
|
|
Post by tharrin on Mar 17, 2006 17:26:38 GMT -5
"Superior Right" One human having a superior position over another human just because he/she, some group of humans or some document says so.
This is factually unprovable to be valid. The only recourse is to enforce the belief system through use of violence, coercion, theft or murder.
This method does not support the belief system but debases it as nothing more than childish bullying. If you won't believe in my right then I will hit you until you do. Fairly clear I'd say of the system in place to day; meaning government and it's paper theocracy.
NonE, you think I am a religious person. Please don't insult me. I am not an atheist either, which to my understand rejects anything non-tangible as tangibly impossible.
I am however, spiritual. That does not mean I'm a bible thumping zealot, I most definitely am not. However, I have read the bible and find interesting lessons in it that can apply to everyday life. Could we live a better life if we adopted the policies of the 12 commandments? It is possible we could. Would it work homogeneously, probably not because there will always be people who could care less about the policies and would ignore them. That is how present day law actually is suppose to work.
Speed limit is 55, you the sinner drive 95, those honorable men entrusted with the sacred writings, consult those sacred writing and pronounce judgment on you. You are punished for your infraction.
The problem with it all is those that enforce and pen the sacred writings are just as flawed as the sinner.
Spiritually, (if you can get past the whole religious aspect of the word spiritual) allows me to transcend religious, political, racist, social, and a never ending line of isms and ists, to see the world as it is. I do not discount the good in the world as you tend to point at me as a negativist (if there is such a thing or word) but I am a true realist. What is...is.
To say the world is 50/50 good vs evil is naive. Yes the good is great and the least of my problems, the evil part of it is what we are dealing with. MY PROPERTY...bang...your dead, caged, poorer, injured or a combination of or all of the above, is where I have to concentrate my efforts. Will it ever be a utopia? I won't live long enough to find out on this plane of existence. Is there a life after this. I don't know but neither do I know there isn't. Can't prove it either way.
Rights are on the same level as property. What rights do I have? How can I prove I have superior right over you to live on this planet. That's easy. Bang...your dead problem solved. Accept all I did was create a negative where a positive could have been created. We agree to live and let live but that is never good enough on this planet (historically speaking). History is replete with examples factually proving man wants superior position over his fellow inhabitants. They clamor to it's call. They deify those that have ascended to great financial wealth and ownership over and above the rest of us. We love it when we attain this position and hate it when others attain it over us or by us (generally speaking and not necessarily a reflection of those on this forum).
It appears to be human nature or human conditioning that makes this whole ownership thing tick. We love the idea of having something nobody else has (again my observation of humans historically and present day).
Is this life a continuing education? Well it appears to be. Why do I say this? Because as we go through this existence we find out what works and what does not. We can play both sides of the game; either to our personal advantage (theft, deception, murder, rape, brutality, fear and a host of other negative actions) or we can do it for mutual and inclusive advantage of us all (respect, honor, mutually agreement, love, sharing and understanding).
Am I talking about a utopia (with knowledge of the present day way of things)? Probably. Do I believe we can attain this utopia? Our historical track record isn't very promising. We seem to make strides only to take a giant leap backward as social beings. The very creation of the laws that are suppose to bind us, reminds us of how we interacted previously.
So I, as a spiritual person, can only hope mankind will get his head out of his ars and plod on to a better existence. The only hope I have seen of that are the people on this forum and forums like it who sit down and air their various beliefs and work it out peacefully.
Although, our little palavers do little to change the way things are really. You dance in the sunshine NonE, I'll work on changing the stormy weather into sunshine because I know storms come and go, as people have the entire spectrum within them to do either good or evil too each other and that is only a matter of choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Mar 17, 2006 17:49:38 GMT -5
[2i2 asked]: "Am i not correct in saying that you can hold me, as outside of you, to an obligation when it comes to what we hold equally as to behavior?"
Nope. Not correct. I hope that you might treat me respectfully, but I'm a fool if I don't also recognize that an armed society is a polite society. If you threaten me I will attempt to defend myself. This does not show that I have any "rights," it simply shows that I'm a human and seek to continue being a human and not worm food. May i rephrase my proposition? If so: "Am i not correct in saying that you can appeal to me, as outside of you, as to an obligation when it comes to what we hold equally (as co-existent) as to behavior? (and vice-versa, of course, i can appeal to you) i hear here a divider that just seems it shouldn't be here or have gotten here, as between us; i can only hope to clarify my perspective... first, I would not say I seek to "claim" any right(s); that sounds indeed like something factual when imho, right(s) are sheer agreement from the git-go; secondly, then, as we (people) are reality (realities), we can and do respect the concept; as again, that's all right(s) is(are) to start with. Rights then, as many other things, begin with thought (reality) where thought turns to actuality (literal/physical). [this is after all, just the "law"/formula of "The State"; State of (in) mind = State of being/affairs; noting, that The State is nothing but people... to start with, but the end with ] eg: say... the (a) right to life; I do not "claim" it, I appeal to you (or any other) regarding it, as to our equal nature/co-existence regarding it. Our voluntary agreement, acted upon, is the force of nature! Gosh, soooo true. Good reminder~ Again, perhaps we've closed the chasm some already by now... as I honestly don't know that I've held (or presented here?) the opinion that "a" right (or right) is "a law" of elemental (physical) Nature [we already addressed "The Divine" aspect ]. Rather, it is a reality "law" of natural co-existence founded (and perhaps discovered/uncovered, like any treasure, by much labor, in this case, using the "tool" of reasoning?) in the human mind (as reality). Finally, just to consider, a right can indeed stop a fist or a bullet... and no, I'm not pulling a Neo/Matrix moment here... lol... but simply, as both bullet and fist are directed by another aspect of reality, a human mind. It stops it not after the fact, no; but prior! 2i2 |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Mar 17, 2006 18:48:48 GMT -5
The only hope I have seen of that are the people on this forum and forums like it who sit down and air their various beliefs and work it out peacefully. Yay! Sincere positive feedback, an approving slap on the back for us all! ;D Although, our little palavers do little to change the way things are really. Boo! I don't think that's an appropriate word for our dialogue... How belittling (it seems to me). --- Have a great weekend everybody! I have a sneaking suspicion that this thread is essentially a tree whose branches are fully sprouted, and will grow no more. (But enjoy further discussion, whoever wishes to continue...) :-\ |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Mar 17, 2006 19:45:41 GMT -5
perhaps we could use another (more positive?) dictionary position...? tricky things, these little 4 letter... "word"s ;D --- ditto!! 2i2 |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Mar 17, 2006 19:51:18 GMT -5
2i2,
Interestingly enough, I was just thinking that "we" would be far better off if we eliminated the word "rights" and in it's place used "agreements."
I disagree with what I perceive to be your waffling on the subject of "rights." Please straighten me out if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the concept of "rights" is that it has some firmness to it's nature. When one claims a right to free speech, for example, one does not imagine that means that said "right" is subject to the whims of the local speech committee or anyone else; it presumes to stand firm against all attacks.
An agreement, on the other hand is exactly that. It presumes a meeting of the minds and consideration of all parties in the matter. "Rights" don't grant such respect of others.
And "rights" will NOT stop a bullet, the persuasive argument may very well do so, but I think you are twisting things beyond recognition to make that argument. Keep in mind that the persuasive argument implies a freely chosen course of action on the part of the aggressor, as opposed to stopping a bullet that the aggressor has chosen to let fly. Agreement.
So I return to my point. I believe that the concept of "rights" as I think they are commonly understood is fallacious and is destructive to our understanding of the nature of reality and how best to negotiate successfully within it.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Mar 17, 2006 21:37:11 GMT -5
2i2,
Interestingly enough, I was just thinking that "we" would be far better off if we eliminated the word "rights" and in it's place used "agreements."
I disagree with what I perceive to be your waffling on the subject of "rights." Please straighten me out if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the concept of "rights" is that it has some firmness to it's nature. When one claims a right to free speech, for example, one does not imagine that means that said "right" is subject to the whims of the local speech committee or anyone else; it presumes to stand firm against all attacks.
An agreement, on the other hand is exactly that. It presumes a meeting of the minds and consideration of all parties in the matter. "Rights" don't grant such respect of others.
And "rights" will NOT stop a bullet, the persuasive argument may very well do so, but I think you are twisting things beyond recognition to make that argument. Keep in mind that the persuasive argument implies a freely chosen course of action on the part of the aggressor, as opposed to stopping a bullet that the aggressor has chosen to let fly. Agreement.
So I return to my point. I believe that the concept of "rights" as I think they are commonly understood is fallacious and is destructive to our understanding of the nature of reality and how best to negotiate successfully within it.
- NonE NonE, I just scanned a dictionary, and boy, you may be "right"... ;D It has quite a plethora of attachment. What you post as to "the concept" as to "commonly understood", as I'd hear that then as "presently" or "popularly", may second your motion. I honestly don't know the most historical common usage, as to whether it would be wiser to seek to reclaim it or abandon it. I also honestly don't know the popular/current majority "agreement" as to it's meaning, so as to ascertain whether easier to correct or simply abandon. Interestingly, perhaps, is what Webster's 1828 has as to the etymology: " right - properly, to strain or stretch; stretch to straighten." Where for you then, declaring "rights" IS a stretch (as to a strain, I'll refrain) lol ;D jus kiddin'~ Ok, seriously, the core of the word for me, as "stretch to straighten" indicates equality and it indicates admission (if "self" is over the line); ie both sides of a straight line = no trespass, no transgression... as well as the shortest path to a destination (ie Peace)! Granted, straight for many conjurs up "ruler" (ie "king"); but a ruler first is simply a straight edge, etc; king as a ruler is oxymoronic. For sake of my position, I would note that one defiition of "right" is " Freedom from error; conformity with that which is truth or fact". Defining error for me is again simply an appeal made to our common birth (a fact)-"right" equality. "right" (equality) as opposed to "wrong" (inequality). Another entry is: " that which is proper". What is proper is what is arrived at per equal authority. One entry that caught my eye is: " right - property" ! [duly noting, there are indeed the "negative" entries regarding " conformity to the will of God/The Law... human laws... legal title... legal power..." etc. Religion and Government creeps have (buy?) their ever-creeping daffynition entries] If I may, I'll try to give a summary of position/motion "for" it: * "right(s)" hold no appeal to any higher authority; be that divine or simply any other person (non-entity) . * all that people have is "agreement", as we even have to first agree to term definition to get to "right" (just/mutual/equal/fair) agreement vs wrong agreement. * an appeal to right(s) is simply an appeal to eventual agreement (it is a claim only in that human equality establishes it mutually; failure to "agree" to the reasoned claim is simply making oneself a higher authority, etc; but the party failed has only a non-violent or defensive option, with further appeal including other "non-entity" persuasion/reasoning). Any "firmness to it's nature" imho is merely what both sides are willing to see in the equality of human nature (ie "birth"). Lack of interest in that generally leads to non-agreement (ie rights violation) in the first place. I might also note what one author says: The equality that John Locke and Thomas Jefferson speak of is equal in authority. "equal rights" then? My straight line should align with your straight line if indeed both are straight... both are right = we hold equal authority~ (interesting, as to word play, how right can be center of left and "right", aye?!)  As to the/any "waffling", I would only plead mercy as indeed, much of this seems to inherently hold waffling potential. As then, does "agreement" hold any straighter line ("right") as to waffling prevention/reduction? (why else do the typical agreements have all the fine print?!) I suppose my primary reason for holding on to it is simply it's potential benefit as to contrast with "wrong"; "agreements" just doesn't draw that for me (tho granted, even the word "wrong" can carry inequality). Perhaps it holds some emotional appeal that might stretch (awake) "the straight line" within~ 2i2 Finally, as to any "subject to the whims of the local speech committee or anyone else"... the word "rights" vs word "agreements"... I see little diff when it comes to such, as again, the first agreement is to (requires) "right" (?) word meaning as Voltaire admonished~ |
|
).
;D