Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Current Topics
Gerrymandering
by perotista - 01/17/22 10:15 PM
Winning
by perotista - 01/17/22 08:21 PM
Texas hostages
by pdx rick - 01/17/22 08:08 PM
Coronavirus: The Plague of The 21st Century?
by pdx rick - 01/17/22 08:06 PM
The long and winding road to Dumbass
by chunkstyle - 01/17/22 05:28 PM
Round Table Winter 2021
by pdx rick - 01/17/22 12:00 AM
National Commission to Investigate the January 6
by pondering_it_all - 01/16/22 12:02 PM
Lindsey v. Mitch: Senate cage match
by logtroll - 01/15/22 05:11 AM
Don't look up
by jgw - 01/14/22 10:42 PM
Complexity Science
by Jeffery J. Haas - 01/12/22 06:34 PM
What's for dinner?
by pondering_it_all - 01/02/22 09:37 PM
RoundTable For Fall 2021
by Mellowicious - 01/02/22 04:21 AM
Divorce: American Style
by pdx rick - 12/31/21 01:56 AM
Gimme some of that good ol time religion
by pondering_it_all - 12/23/21 08:19 PM
F.D.A. Will Permanently Allow Abortion Pills by Mail
by Mellowicious - 12/22/21 09:03 PM
Joe Manchin thread
by perotista - 12/22/21 08:33 PM
A Fungus Amungus
by logtroll - 12/22/21 01:00 AM
Texas abortion law guy responds
by Mellowicious - 12/19/21 02:06 AM
Popular Topics(Views)
9,783,889 my own book page
4,858,416 We shall overcome
3,972,868 Campaign 2016
3,616,483 Trump's Trumpet
2,870,972 3 word story game
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 19 of 29 1 2 17 18 19 20 21 28 29
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
I
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Originally Posted by loganrbt
Only unalienable rights I have seen listed are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Is there another list somewhere that I've not seen?

If you are interested in the subject, we did a couple of threads a while back on Rights. I doubt that Phil intended to have the thread drift away from the claim that "libertarianism makes you stupid" (i.e., Issodhos is stupid:-)). Here are a couple of links:
Originally Posted by issodhos
Allow me to first repeat, with emphasis added, what I have previously written, which was, �My view is that rights are inalienable and pre-exist the state and also pre-exist any agreement made among men to recognize them.� Please note that I did not write that they pre-existed man. I also wrote that �rights are integral to the human mind� which is to say they are integral to man. They are essential to the completeness of man and reflect the nature of man, not nature in general, not �natural� man, but the nature of man.
Do Individual Rights Exist?
and
Individual Rights vs Group claims
Yours,
Issodhos
P.s As Greger commented, "those three cover a lot of ground." And are you familiar with the IX Amendment?



"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
I
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Originally Posted by loganrbt
Originally Posted by Phil Hoskins
Issodhos, at the bedrock, where I think your system is falsely based is your claim that government should exist only to secure individual rights. On what is that based, other than your assumption? Why not common rights as well?

Going down a different road: if the rights are individual rights, then why do we need (or want) a state to secure them? Let them hire their own security.

Anarcho-capitalists make a case for doing just that, loganrbt. But, I do not think there are any anarcho-capitalists in the forum to defend that position.
Yours,
Issodhos


"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Originally Posted by 2wins
Originally Posted by Ardy
IMO it is worthwhile to consider why and how governments came into being. That is, how did primitive human groupings develop the institution of "government".

IMO, the examination of that question will show that government did not develop as a means to secure rights. And, if that is the case, it seems logically problematical to propose that this function is the EXCLUSIVE justification for the existence of the institution of government.
i'll bite on this. this brings to mind hunter/gatherers. my first thought here is that they would have organized, on some level, to ensure the group was fed and kept safe from the elements. thus, a division of labor was introduced, each person accepting a job that would assist in benefiting the whole.

As Phil also said... Guns, Germs and Steel makes an excellent reference for the dynamics underlying the development of nations.

In a nutshell... hunter gatherer societies have never developed large nations. You do not get to large nations until societies make the transition to agricultural societies. These primitive societies are operated by some sort of elite... kings, priests, chiefs, etc.

Fundamentally the king wants less internal conflict... in order to maximize the wealth and power of his domain. The king is less concerned about establishing individual rights and property ownership except as it may help his objectives of increased power.

Generally, smaller , less centralized social groups are conquered by larger social groups... and those larger social groups act sort of like black holes that suck in all the small groups around them

Large social groups (like the roman empire) have little interest in individual rights except as they may be expedient. The main an unconditional foundation of these large social groups is to maintain and enrich the ruling class/hierarchy. Anyone who gets in the way of that objective is disposed of.



"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
I
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Originally Posted by loganrbt
There certainly are some that argue there are such rights; descended from natural law, the flowery language of the Declaration of Independence (which, as a footnote, has no legal standing; it is mere puffery announcing the intent to hold a revolution), or some other source.

One is just a bit of puffery, and the other is just a g*ddam* piece of paper, wot?;-)
Yours,
Issodhos


"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
I
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
The structure then follows from that principle "e pluribus unum" - from the many, one. Libertarianism is, quite directly, very "un"-constitutional, as it places the interests of individuals over that of the collective whole. Ooops... there's that "collective" word again....

You do realize, do you not, NW Ponderer, that "e pluribus unum" simply means "out of many states, one nation" -- and later repositioned to mean "out of many immigrating peoples, a single people?" Why attempt to falsely color it as a call for a sociopolitical collective?

Libertarianism recognizes the natural rights of the individual, recognizes that the individual, not the state, is the owner of his person, and that valid governments are instituted among men to secure those rights. "Interests" are another matter.
Yours,
Issodhos
P.s. Your premise is again false.


"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 44,847
Likes: 50
Member
CHB-OG
Offline
Member
CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 44,847
Likes: 50
Originally Posted by issodhos
...Your system has failed time and time again and the only response to its failure is to do the same thing over again.
Isn't that the definition of insanity? To perform the task the same way over and over again and expect different results each time the task is repeated.


Contrarian, extraordinaire


Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
I
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Originally Posted by california rick
Originally Posted by issodhos
...Your system has failed time and time again and the only response to its failure is to do the same thing over again.
Isn't that the definition of insanity? To perform the task the same way over and over again and expect different results each time the task is repeated.

So I have been told, rick. Of course, it could simply be a reactionary need on the part of some to try to conserve the past. Hmmm..... kinda conservative, wot?:-)
Yours,
Issodhos


"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,655
Likes: 27
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,655
Likes: 27
You do realize, Issodhos, that e pluribus unum is Latin, no? It has a longer lineage than its appearance on the great seal, and has multiple meanings - one of which is that the collection of States created the Union (hence the name, "United States"). It was also a popular phrase in connection with discussion of commonwealths, as I tried to point out earlier, as it implied that the power of the State came from its people, not from on high or based upon birthright. e pluribus unum At the time this was a pretty radical concept. I suppose you haven't spent much time on the Constitution, have you - its structure and purpose? Oh, but discussion of that substantive portion of my earlier post would detract from the distraction of focusing on semantics, wouldn't it?

"Rights" are merely interests that have gained sufficient importance to be protected by legal strictures - oh, which means protected by the State. Inconvenient, that. The idea that they exist independent of any sort of structure is a logical impossibility, but an aspirational and rhetorical point that inspired the Enlightenment thinkers, and conceptually something I have always honored. It is an important touchstone concept for the balancing of interests between individuals, and between individuals and "the people." Unfortunately in the hands of libertarians, the concept "natural rights" tends to devolve into a meaningless muddle of logical impossibility, as was noted by many earlier posts. Stripped of nuance and context "rights" tend to become rather hollow and ephemeral. It is akin to trying to take the Bible as literal truth, and leads down the same rabbit hole of discongruity. (How does one define a "right," for example, without reference to an authority? It's one of those "nice to have" concepts if it isn't recognized and protected. By whom? Oops, haring off into substance again, aren't I? Bad habit, that.)

I'm getting the impression, Issdhos, that you prefer to delve into semantics and ignore the substance, though. It is a disappointing habit. I will leave you to that. (I also suspect you never read the articles from the first post, but it is just a guess on my part.)

By the way, disagreement does not make a premise "false" - it just means you don't like, or didn't understand it. What I actually said was, "Failure of the premise requires failure of the conclusion."


A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 18,652
Likes: 47
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 18,652
Likes: 47
NWP, In checking your link and expecting a treatise on the Latin roots and meanings of e pluribus unum I find instead a salad recipe, or actually e pluribus unus a brief discussion of a poem describing a salad recipe. This salad doesn't sound particularly appetizing but by definition comes, I think closer to the truth than either you or Issodhos have come in the literal meaning of the phrase. Perhaps I oversimplify when I leave out commonwealth and immigrants and all the other semantics that can be tied to the phrase and suggest that "out of many, one" is what e pluribus unum means, simply a synonym for United. The phrase can be used to describe many things but I think it really has only one meaning.
Just as the cheese and herbs join together to become one the States did the same, their many flavors and colours melding into a single ball with it's own particular flavour.


Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,850
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,850
Originally Posted by issodhos
Issodhos is stupid:-)).

Hmm

Is paranoia setting in?


"The white men were as thick and numerous and aimless as grasshoppers, moving always in a hurry but never seeming to get to whatever place it was they were going to." Dee Brown
Page 19 of 29 1 2 17 18 19 20 21 28 29

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 51 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
SuZQ2, KevFilthyANML, Risky, Gladys G. Jackson, Beach Baby
6,297 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums61
Topics17,274
Posts313,887
Members6,297
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.4.27 Page Time: 0.017s Queries: 36 (0.007s) Memory: 3.0473 MB (Peak: 3.2530 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2022-01-17 22:21:36 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS