[quote]Sloth wrote:
Or accidentally fashion some species ending virus that was only supposed to introduce a genetic therapy into the human body.[/quote]
Just watch the Planet of the Apes remake?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Rules do flow from that.
There are ideas that truly are alien to human nature. [/quote]
Opinions might. Rules flow from the power to make the rules. A ruler or rulers. Whatever those rules might be.
[/quote]
But how long did the rules of the SU stay in place?
Those societies crumble so those guns do not look terribly impressive.
In some ways the cat is out of the bag, industrialized societies are founded on freedom and they cannot do without a healthy dose of it.
The choices really are freedom or poverty and while most people are not really pro freedom they are very anti-poverty.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Nature doesn’t do anything.[/quote]
Then why do you refer to natural rights?
EDIT: You said…
But nature doesn’t do anything.
[quote]orion wrote:
The choices really are freedom or poverty and while most people are not really pro freedom they are very anti-poverty. [/quote]
Oh, they’re anti-poverty to the extent that they’ll vote for the guys who’ll go to ‘war’ against it. But, necessarily see it (poverty and irresponsible behavior) as the end all be all of decision making? Drive through the now multi-generational, fatherless, anti-intellectual, ghetto. The traditional civil institutions that played some role in alleviating the misery of poverty–even crucial to breaking intergenerational cycles of poverty? Fading fastest among the poor. Freedom? The single mother from the ghetto would likely be struck by lightning first, then reach reach a point where she has the ‘freedom’ to buy a yacht. So taxing wealth is no skin off her nose in order to free herself from the miseries of nature. Entitlements for her kids and herself. Schooling, food, healthcare, more schooling, retirement and more healthcare. Moral ideals about sloth, lust, envy, adultery…crucial. But if they’re just opinions? Shoot, set 'em aside and tax the wealthy.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This has nothing to do with mathematics but rather pure philosophy.[/quote]
So rights are whatever we argue them to be? I thought they were inherent/inalienable?
Edit: Heavens knows this sight alone could be dedicated to just what our ‘rights’ are, if we even have any, if turned over to philosophy. So, a matter of opinion. Well, opinion that can made the law by force.[/quote]
Maybe you don’t have rights. Carry on.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Nature doesn’t do anything.[/quote]
Then why do you refer to natural rights?
EDIT: You said…
But nature doesn’t do anything.[/quote]
Nature is a word to describe the totally of processes occurring in the universe.
Nature does not do, it is, and we describe those things occurring in it to be “natural”. Natural laws are laws deduced from specific processes withing nature. Nature does not do it, physical forces, for example, do it. Saying “nature does it” is just a way to disguise what one should really say, “I can only argue in sophisms.”
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Nature doesn’t do anything.[/quote]
Then why do you refer to natural rights?
EDIT: You said…
But nature doesn’t do anything.[/quote]
Nature is a word to describe the totally of processes occurring in the universe.
Nature does not do, it is, and we describe those things occurring in it to be “natural”. Natural laws are laws deduced from specific processes within nature. Nature does not do it, physical forces, for example, do it. Saying “nature does it” is just a way to disguise what one should really say, “I can only argue in sophisms.”[/quote]
Nature is the process of the universe, but forces aren’t part of nature?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Nature doesn’t do anything.[/quote]
Then why do you refer to natural rights?
EDIT: You said…
But nature doesn’t do anything.[/quote]
Nature is a word to describe the totally of processes occurring in the universe.
Nature does not do, it is, and we describe those things occurring in it to be “natural”. Natural laws are laws deduced from specific processes within nature. Nature does not do it, physical forces, for example, do it. Saying “nature does it” is just a way to disguise what one should really say, “I can only argue in sophisms.”[/quote]
Nature is the process of the universe, but forces aren’t part of nature?[/quote]
Nature is the “totality of all processes of the universe”. Sorry for the above typo. I tried to edit but it did not stick.
Saying nature does stuff is akin to saying society does stuff - this is true on the surface but what specifically within “nature” or “society” is doing? These terns only offer a convenient way to collectivize concepts and are not real things in and of themselves.
What rights should be, is the inate ability for each person to pursue his happiness restricted only by that which prevents others from doing the the same. Unfortunately, the disire for others to pursue their happiness while trouncing on yours is all to common.
[quote]pat wrote:
What rights should be, is the inate ability for each person to pursue his happiness restricted only by that which prevents others from doing the the same. Unfortunately, the disire for others to pursue their happiness while trouncing on yours is all to common.[/quote]
Succinctly put.
I don’t think that rights have anything to do with happiness or freedom.
Our service members have some specific rights like the right to a trial, the right to speak to the commanding officer (called Requesting Mast), etc. But none of those rights have anything to do with happiness and definitely doesn’t mean that those men (and women) are free to act as they want.
We’ve got the right to free speech but you don’t have the freedom to yell fire in crowded theater or to shout racial slurs.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
I don’t think that rights have anything to do with happiness or freedom.
Our service members have some specific rights like the right to a trial, the right to speak to the commanding officer (called Requesting Mast), etc. But none of those rights have anything to do with happiness and definitely doesn’t mean that those men (and women) are free to act as they want.
We’ve got the right to free speech but you don’t have the freedom to yell fire in crowded theater or to shout racial slurs. [/quote]
In this sense of the word they are meant only as “guaranteed protections” afforded by a specific institution.
Many organizations draft their own rights which are only adhered to internally - such as “workers’ rights” inside a labor union.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
I don’t think that rights have anything to do with happiness or freedom.
Our service members have some specific rights like the right to a trial, the right to speak to the commanding officer (called Requesting Mast), etc. But none of those rights have anything to do with happiness and definitely doesn’t mean that those men (and women) are free to act as they want.
We’ve got the right to free speech but you don’t have the freedom to yell fire in crowded theater or to shout racial slurs. [/quote]
I am talking about innate rights.
And make no mistake, you are always trying to pursue your own happiness in everything you do… You may be right or wrong in how you go about it, but you try nevertheless.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This has nothing to do with mathematics but rather pure philosophy.[/quote]
So rights are whatever we argue them to be? I thought they were inherent/inalienable?
Edit: Heavens knows this sight alone could be dedicated to just what our ‘rights’ are, if we even have any, if turned over to philosophy. So, a matter of opinion. Well, opinion that can made the law by force.[/quote]
Maybe you don’t have rights. Carry on.[/quote]
Oh, I believe I have rights that don’t change with whoever has power. They can be trespassed upon, sure. However, if not in this life, then the next, justice will be meted out. But, I am ‘superstitious.’ If I wasn’t, then yeah, I wouldn’t claim to have an inherent right to…rights. I could no more empirically prove that than I can my God. Or, that rape is inherently ‘evil.’
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
The choices really are freedom or poverty and while most people are not really pro freedom they are very anti-poverty. [/quote]
Oh, they’re anti-poverty to the extent that they’ll vote for the guys who’ll go to ‘war’ against it. But, necessarily see it (poverty and irresponsible behavior) as the end all be all of decision making? Drive through the now multi-generational, fatherless, anti-intellectual, ghetto. The traditional civil institutions that played some role in alleviating the misery of poverty–even crucial to breaking intergenerational cycles of poverty? Fading fastest among the poor. Freedom? The single mother from the ghetto would likely be struck by lightning first, then reach reach a point where she has the ‘freedom’ to buy a yacht. So taxing wealth is no skin off her nose in order to free herself from the miseries of nature. Entitlements for her kids and herself. Schooling, food, healthcare, more schooling, retirement and more healthcare. Moral ideals about sloth, lust, envy, adultery…crucial. But if they’re just opinions? Shoot, set 'em aside and tax the wealthy.[/quote]
Sure, you can indulge in that, for a while.
Then you go broke.
I am not saying that people develop any deeper insights into this, I am saying that societies either flourish or they dont.
People tend to flock to flourishing societies, it is all rather Darwinian I am afraid.