Rights vs Obligations

[DominionSeraph]

Your entire post is rubbish. I'm hardly freer now than if I had lived 100 years ago.

Oh god, the ignorance is mind-boggling.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I formed a conclusion about you long ago. It's not very flattering

As you are largely incapable of being right, that is flattery.

 

[CycloWizard]

You can't even convert from subject to object orientation, prescription to description. As of now, you only speak, "Stupid," and teaching you how to think is not a project I'm willing to take on.

Fucking grade schoolers.

Your feeble hornswoggling attempt is wasted on someone who actually understands language (or, perhaps more on your level, your Jedi mind trick will not work on me). You incessantly babble without saying anything of substance. You're a zombie.

 

[Brigandier]

Two Treatises of Government

 

[BoberFett]

Your feeble hornswoggling attempt is wasted on someone who actually understands language (or, perhaps more on your level, your Jedi mind trick will not work on me). You incessantly babble without saying anything of substance. You're a zombie.

That's because he has amazing powers of self control, where he can force his mind not to work while his fingers continue to hammer away on the keyboard. That's why the Navy used him as a training dummy.

 

[BladeVenom]

I formed a conclusion about you long ago. It's not very flattering, so I won't express it here.

It's ok, as long as it's expressed in the form of cartoon ponies.

 

[cwjerome]

HAhaha, so to summarize DS:

- She is really critical of sentence structure and on the use of conclusions
- She is fond of using 'grade school' as ad homs
- She dismissed, in one sentence, a whole body of thought on the nature of rights that goes back at least 300 years and on which some of our most important institutions are largely founded

But it's particularly entertaining to see the same dumbed-down talking points wrapped up in such vigorous hostility with virtually no self-awareness of how arrogant, stupid, and plain funny she sounds. Rarely do we get to witness such a hopeless self-esteem in action... one of those "sad but funny" things, a Jerry Springer moment.

 

[BoberFett]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31779862&postcount=114

I've been on that side. A lot. When I was on Naval Security and we went through training scenarios, I was usually the practice dummy because I have this ability to make my body act as though I don't know what's coming, making take-downs realistic. (I identify the inclination to pretend, and then I just don't do it.)

I have faced down the cops with a gun. Faced them down with a knife. And I'll tell ya', the only time it takes more than a split second to disengage is when they've got you in a wrist lock so that you can't open your hand.

 

[cwjerome]

Any time your "right" obligates another to give you his time or talent, he is your slave.

Not really. That is, unless you admit that at some small level, we are all slaves to each other. Here's the thing, and the Founders knew this: Until you get the "We" you cannot make a government. The social contract is with the people first, government second. In this sense, citizenship is more than being a denizen... there are obligations, privileges, responsibilities, and rights that ought to be practiced for a healthy polity to exist. The Founders figured -maybe hoped- Americans had what it takes, the right character and spirit, for a republic to exist... that's why Franklin said "A republic ma'am, if you can keep it." It's a very classical, almost Aristotilian concept of citizenship.

A good country needs good communities and good communities need good citizens. And it's not about 'gettin mine and none of mine should go to anyone else.' John Locke is a good place to start for understanding this. When he speaks of "commonwealth" listen to what he says. Think about the term 'common' (and wealth does not mean riches). The natural right of "Property" (or "happiness" in our declaration) is ours, we own it, it's part of us, it's what we need to survive and protect life and live well. The reason to have it is to advance society -the common wealth- and the reason to protect it is to protect humanity. As Locke said, people can use what they have, take what they need to live, "as long as you leave as much and as good as you took."

The issue is we are all interpreters and everyone starts reasoning differently, and that's how you have so many on the Right today act as though property does mean riches and it's all about who has the most marbles at the end of the game. Understanding Locke means knowing property is a right because it serves the public use and good, and abuse of that property can mean having it taken away.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Not really. That is, unless you admit that at some small level, we are all slaves to each other. Here's the thing, and the Founders knew this: Until you get the "We" you cannot make a government. The social contract is with the people first, government second. In this sense, citizenship is more than being a denizen... there are obligations, privileges, responsibilities, and rights that ought to be practiced for a healthy polity to exist. The Founders figured -maybe hoped- Americans had what it takes, the right character and spirit, for a republic to exist... that's why Franklin said "A republic ma'am, if you can keep it." It's a very classical, almost Aristotilian concept of citizenship.

A good country needs good communities and good communities need good citizens. And it's not about 'gettin mine and none of mine should go to anyone else.' John Locke is a good place to start for understanding this. When he speaks of "commonwealth" listen to what he says. Think about the term 'common' (and wealth does not mean riches). The natural right of "Property" (or "happiness" in our declaration) is ours, we own it, it's part of us, it's what we need to survive and protect life and live well. The reason to have it is to advance society -the common wealth- and the reason to protect it is to protect humanity. As Locke said, people can use what they have, take what they need to live, "as long as you leave as much and as good as you took."

The issue is we are all interpreters and everyone starts reasoning differently, and that's how you have so many on the Right today act as though property does mean riches and it's all about who has the most marbles at the end of the game. Understanding Locke means knowing property is a right because it serves the public use and good, and abuse of that property can mean having it taken away.

The modern Conservative movement can basically be summed up as follows:

"Fuck you I've got mine"

And that is fundamentally why you won't sniff another national election for a LONG time. The country is changing and moving in an entirely different direction. Any attempts to go backward will be met with abject failure.

 

[schneiderguy]

HAhaha, so to summarize DS:

- She is really critical of sentence structure and on the use of conclusions
- She is fond of using 'grade school' as ad homs
- She dismissed, in one sentence, a whole body of thought on the nature of rights that goes back at least 300 years and on which some of our most important institutions are largely founded

But it's particularly entertaining to see the same dumbed-down talking points wrapped up in such vigorous hostility with virtually no self-awareness of how arrogant, stupid, and plain funny she sounds. Rarely do we get to witness such a hopeless self-esteem in action... one of those "sad but funny" things, a Jerry Springer moment.

The scary thing is that it's a he, not a she D:

 

[cwjerome]

The modern Conservative movement can basically be summed up as follows:

"Fuck you I've got mine"

And that is fundamentally why you won't sniff another national election for a LONG time. The country is changing and moving in an entirely different direction. Any attempts to go backward will be met with abject failure.

That's a simplistic daydream for the Left, and something they usually say after any presidential win.

The modern "conservative movement" that I know, initiated by Goldwater and brought to bear by Reagan, has shifted America Right and continues to frame the debate. Today, there does seem to be more hacks and retards than ever, but it's a loose conglomeration of groups and always subtly shifting and adapting. Only a blind partisan or blind ideologue would count conservatives out of the national picture. Which are you?

 

[werepossum]

The modern Conservative movement can basically be summed up as follows:

"Fuck you I've got mine"

And that is fundamentally why you won't sniff another national election for a LONG time. The country is changing and moving in an entirely different direction. Any attempts to go backward will be met with abject failure.

As opposed to the modern progressive movement, which can be summed up as follows:
"You earn it, I burn it."

Basically the same except the left's version eliminates the need to get yours; you just take someone else's. But hey, when the nation is all ticks and no dog I'm sure we'll all be happy.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Its ever persons right to not be obligated to anyone or anything . How you go about accomplishing that is a matter of choice, which in turn determines your fate.

 

[werepossum]

Its ever persons right to not be obligated to anyone or anything . How you go about accomplishing that is a matter of choice, which in turn determines your fate.

Problem is you can't really have the benefits of civilization without socialism, which requires mutual obligation and inevitably reduces freedom and individual liberty. We have to be careful with how much socialism we let creep in, but we also have to be careful not to cut off our noses to spite our faces. That said, like Cyclo I too have major problems with our entitlement society and the concept of "positive rights".

 

[Moonbeam]

CycloWizard: In the last thread I started, I questioned the current trend by our government to declare something a right when that "right" was really an imposition on individuals to provide a good or service for everyone else.

M: The government has a duty to insure your rights. It's can't maintain a protective force for free. We vote the government the money via our representatives. There is no evil government force at work. You create the delusion all by yourself.

CW: I have been thinking about the cognitive framework surrounding such assertions for some time now. I think I now see the fundamental disconnect between this worldview and my own.

M: Remember that conservatives don't think, they rationalize. You are doubtless starting with a conclusion and looking for proof of it.

CW: Such a framework is completely upside-down for me because it posits that rights are something granted by government to citizens.

No, rights are inalienable and the job of the government is to provide defense, insure peace, and further the general welfare.

CW: This implies that actions are prohibited unless specifically permitted.

No Actions that infringe on other's rights are prohibited.

CW: However, this is precisely the opposite view on which our nation (indeed, all just governments) was founded: "unalienable rights" are intrinsic and governments exist to protect them. In this view, actions are permitted unless specifically prohibited.

M: Exactly

CW: Further, rights do not require action on the part of another (though upholding them may require inaction - e.g. killing, enslaving, or stealing must not be done as they would infringe rights to life, liberty, and property). Not so for the "new rights" of guaranteed pensions, healthcare, and higher education.

M: These promote the general welfare and were enacted into law passing constitutional muster.

CW: Any time your "right" obligates another to give you his time or talent, he is your slave.

M: No any time you do not comply with your legal responsibilities you can get in trouble.

CW: We are transforming from a nation based on rights to one based on obligations.

M: Your rights are my obligation. You must be provided with them.


CW: It's been a gradual transition over decades. "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" should set off alarms for anyone under the impression that we live in a free, rights-based society. Government creep is very real and occurring at an accelerated rate.

M: The lunacy of the right is what is increasing, the childish notion that you are an island.

CW: Indeed, it was for this very reason that Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence's list of grievances, "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."

M: Right, a foreign imposition of taxes without representation. When we do it to ourselves it the law.

CW: The level of government bureaucracy and invasiveness to which we are subject today dwarfs that experienced in the 1700's. Each added government worker is an imposition on the rights of citizens and further imbalances the equation which should govern the federal budget. The longer it takes everyone to realize that the shoe is on the wrong foot the deeper the hole will be.

M: Many complain that to sacrifice freedom for safety is a sin. Such sentiments have become quaint in a world full of technological dangers unparalleled in the history of the world. Today folk want to make sure you don't have a bomb in you shaving cream or the heal of your shoe. Quite rational because of the reality of the threat. You, however, are like a horse with a burr under it's saddle, and feel put upon. You have a big ego and a bad attitude.

 

[CycloWizard]

Not really. That is, unless you admit that at some small level, we are all slaves to each other. Here's the thing, and the Founders knew this: Until you get the "We" you cannot make a government. The social contract is with the people first, government second. In this sense, citizenship is more than being a denizen... there are obligations, privileges, responsibilities, and rights that ought to be practiced for a healthy polity to exist. The Founders figured -maybe hoped- Americans had what it takes, the right character and spirit, for a republic to exist... that's why Franklin said "A republic ma'am, if you can keep it." It's a very classical, almost Aristotilian concept of citizenship.

A good country needs good communities and good communities need good citizens. And it's not about 'gettin mine and none of mine should go to anyone else.' John Locke is a good place to start for understanding this. When he speaks of "commonwealth" listen to what he says. Think about the term 'common' (and wealth does not mean riches). The natural right of "Property" (or "happiness" in our declaration) is ours, we own it, it's part of us, it's what we need to survive and protect life and live well. The reason to have it is to advance society -the common wealth- and the reason to protect it is to protect humanity. As Locke said, people can use what they have, take what they need to live, "as long as you leave as much and as good as you took."

The issue is we are all interpreters and everyone starts reasoning differently, and that's how you have so many on the Right today act as though property does mean riches and it's all about who has the most marbles at the end of the game. Understanding Locke means knowing property is a right because it serves the public use and good, and abuse of that property can mean having it taken away.

I would slightly revise your premise. The relationship between individuals and other individuals is fundamentally different than that between individuals and government. In the former, mutual benefit, compromise, or coercion might be used to resolve conflict. In principle, government's job is to take coercion out of the picture to level the playing field. It achieves this by using another form of coercion (i.e. the force of law) but (theoretically) applies this with justice.
government can compel you to do things.

The concept of hierarchical communities arises naturally from our inability to negotiate terms with every person we come across. A group of people agree to terms and that binds their community. Communities then negotiate with each other and so on until we arrive at the level of national governments, regional organizations (EU), and eventually the UN.

I find Locke's concept of property rights fundamentally at odds with the idea of the right to life or property in general. Locke's view considers each of the intrinsic rights as solitary with no interaction. I see them as necessarily related: we invest part of our life (i.e. time) to earn property. Thus, if someone takes my property, they have infringed my right to life. The balance I choose between life and property is governed by my right to freedom. People are free to work themselves to the bone to earn property just as they are free to live a life of leisure and not earn anything; most choose something in the middle. Government or individuals with the ability to take my property then overthrow my rights to life, liberty, or property. Very few people would invest in an education if they did not have the right to keep the improved wages they expect to earn. Relatively little would get done if person A could earn more by busting his ass only to have person B come and take it. Locke merely proposed a theory - he did not arrive at the only logical conclusion. His conclusion is akin to a linear model which neglects interaction effects between the rights.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I would slightly revise your premise. The relationship between individuals and other individuals is fundamentally different than that between individuals and government. In the former, mutual benefit, compromise, or coercion might be used to resolve conflict. In principle, government's job is to take coercion out of the picture to level the playing field. It achieves this by using another form of coercion (i.e. the force of law) but (theoretically) applies this with justice.
government can compel you to do things.

The concept of hierarchical communities arises naturally from our inability to negotiate terms with every person we come across. A group of people agree to terms and that binds their community. Communities then negotiate with each other and so on until we arrive at the level of national governments, regional organizations (EU), and eventually the UN.

I find Locke's concept of property rights fundamentally at odds with the idea of the right to life or property in general. Locke's view considers each of the intrinsic rights as solitary with no interaction. I see them as necessarily related: we invest part of our life (i.e. time) to earn property. Thus, if someone takes my property, they have infringed my right to life. The balance I choose between life and property is governed by my right to freedom. People are free to work themselves to the bone to earn property just as they are free to live a life of leisure and not earn anything; most choose something in the middle. Government or individuals with the ability to take my property then overthrow my rights to life, liberty, or property. Very few people would invest in an education if they did not have the right to keep the improved wages they expect to earn. Relatively little would get done if person A could earn more by busting his ass only to have person B come and take it. Locke merely proposed a theory - he did not arrive at the only logical conclusion. His conclusion is akin to a linear model which neglects interaction effects between the rights.

You lost the election, in embarrassing fashion, and your party will never sniff the Presidency until major changes are made that fundamentally dismantle modern Conservatism as you know it.

The sooner you accept the reality sitting in front of you the better.

 

[Agent11]

This is an excellent argument which has profoundly changed my views. Thank you for opening my eyes to the reality that people like you use government as a tool to take the rights of others rather than secure your own. You have no interest in equality of opportunity or living in a free society because you see government as your only way to get where you want to be. You are exactly the problem I was addressing in the OP. Your myopia means you do not see the long-term effects of handing this much power to government just as every progressive society has done throughout history. Tell me, how did it end for them? What happens when the interests of that very powerful government no longer align with your own? You will weep when you realize that building a government which takes rights has resulted in you losing all of yours. This has happened plenty of times throughout history and is utterly predictable. You and your ilk have damned us all simply by virtue of there being more of you. That is the inherent flaw of democracy.

This is why we are a Republic with a constitution and checks and balances, not a pure Democracy.

 

[dank69]

Keep fighting your happiness, conservatives.

 

[CycloWizard]

You lost the election, in embarrassing fashion, and your party will never sniff the Presidency until major changes are made that fundamentally dismantle modern Conservatism as you know it.

The sooner you accept the reality sitting in front of you the better.

I notice you neglected to address any of the points I made in my previous post. I guess it's difficult to do so without upending your ridiculous, blatantly racist worldview so I don't expect you to do it now.

 

[CycloWizard]

This is why we are a Republic with a constitution and checks and balances, not a pure Democracy.

A republic form of government simply slows down the onslaught of mob rule.

 

[dank69]

... "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" should set off alarms for anyone under the impression that we live in a free, rights-based society. ...

Only if you define "country" as "our government" instead of "our fellow citizens."

 

[Moonbeam]

A republic form of government simply slows down the onslaught of mob rule.

Yup, people like you get in the way of evolution trying to preserve a purity of past that never existed. First all those rights had to be won for slaves, then women and now gays. Fucking mob rule.

 

[BoberFett]

Only if you define "country" as "our government" instead of "our fellow citizens."

I love doing things for my fellow citizens. My neighbor is a fellow citizen. Some guy a town over, not quite so much. Some guy in another state? Even less so.

The top down bureaucracy we're moving to will eventually collapse under it's own weight. Consent of the governed falls apart the further it gets away from the people it's supposed to represent. See: Prohibition, Iraq war, War on Drugs, War on Terror, DOMA, Copyrights, Patents, Taxes, and any of the thousands of forms of federal pork that people despise paying for.