The delusions of Western "natural rights".

No, if a member of the public prefers authoritarianism then so be it. In North Korea nobody supports it but nobody says anything. Doing that is very dangerous.

 

Do you prefer it? I know of nobody that does. But if you confuse authoritarianism with laws that you don't agree with. the problem is not the government.

 

Right, try this:

Regarding human nature:
Human traits (eg, altruism, greed) evolved over eons; "human rights" are created constructs.

So created law on behalf of the collective, will have to deal with the spectrum of human traits shown by individuals.

Law is above the particular traits of any particular individual:
"For all to be free, all must submit to rule of law": Cicero.

That which a particular individual is prepared to die for, is irrelevant.
for the collective wellbeing.

Sheer, blind Libertarian nonsense.

Government exists to avoid anarchy among naturally self-interested individuals (with many traits, as mentioned above) . The quality of the government, and its ability to promote good relations among competitive individuals, depends on the effectiveness of its laws.

That's the goal of government. But as noted earlier, achieving it depends on the citizens' willingness to support the laws necessary to achieve the common welfare.

Not a straw man, but a comment on your observation that 500,000 people can make laws against the wishes of 499,000 people....that's democracy for you (ie rule by 50% + 1).

Your error here is plain to see: "we the people" are not a uni-policy entity, but are split along the political spectrum.

So the law cannot submit to us, because "we" have different ideas on what the law should be.

Therefore the reverse must be true, ie we must submit to the law, however it is formulated.

Hopefully with the goal of the common welfare and collective well-being uppermost, why would you want anything other than that?

Well...I DO see "benevolent authority" under rule of law, NOT a dictator, as a way forward, in our broken world.

You are complicit in maintenance of our broken world, because of your paranoia re government.

Refuted above: law, and international law, is a work in progress with the goal of a secure prosperous world in mind.

The essentials are no longer scarce, hence we can create an economy which works for all.
Of course a policy of unlimited growth is insane, on a finite planet.

AI increases efficiency of production. The issue is available resource mobilization, for the benefit of all. Note: as poverty is eradicated, the birth rate falls, allowing production to serve everyone's essential needs.

 

No. Unless you're using an esoteric definition I don't need definitions I'm fluent in English.

A lot of people do this to try and pretend they're smarter than they really are and it will often comes off as arrogant and condescending and those are traits of people who aren't as smart as they think they are


So created law on behalf of the collective, will have to deal with the spectrum of human traits shown by individuals.



Law is above the particular traits of any particular individual:
"For all to be free, all must submit to rule of law": Cicero.
[/QUOTE] but for the law to deserve submission it must be beneficial to the people.

If it's to serve government to control then government must be opposed.

however that which many individuals are willing to die for is dire and of the utmost importance.

If you don't want to live in absolute chaos.

thank you for the compliment I take absolute pride in not being an authoritarian.

see this is the product of our public schools when the government gets to teach you that it's the hero in its own story you believe that they're necessary to stave off anarchy.

When in a lot of cases they are there cause of it. They often thrive in it in fact the threat of anarchy isn't exactly how Nazis Rose to power.

If you need a mommy to bring order to you and you can't order yourself you are an authoritarian.

this is just more authoritarian public school indoctrination. The government isn't interested in good relations they thrive when relations are bad that's when they get to make laws that limit rights.

Please compliment me again by telling me how libertarian I am I love you being libertarian because then I'm not authoritarian. The opposite of Liberty is authority there are two ends of the same spectrum.

no. The goal of government is to control as much as they can and to keep as much of the material goods for themselves. This has been how governments operate since Mesopotamia.

What made the US unique was the laws restraining the government in the form of a constitution.

it wasn't an observation of my comment it was an observation of a misrepresentation of my comment.

Yes I know democracy is the tyranny of the majority this is my appeals to the majority are on logical fallacy.

Much of our country is going against the majority for the rights of an individual. Joseph the majority wanted to hold slaves in a democracy there would just be a slave class because they would vote on who gets to be the slaves and it would be the minority and that's how it's worked for millennia.

But we did in the US was killed people for that until they submitted and that's how Liberty was won.

this only came about because of tyrannical ends. When you promise one group z fruits of the labor of the other group they're going to vote for you and that's sort of where this party's split began.

I would think a majority of people would prefer to be left alone. Neither party in our system wants to do that. They are both authoritarian.

sorry to break it to you but anywhere and everywhere throughout all of history the law submitted to the people. If it didn't the people would just break the law and if the punishment became harsh the people would kill those who punished them.

And the people always have the power it's never in the government.
[QUOTE[
Therefore the reverse must be true, ie we must submit to the law, however it is formulated.[/QUOTE] so when they come for the trade unionists you're supposed to say nothing because you're not a trade unionist?

I disagree in every way with all authoritarianism there's no way you're ever going to convince me this is a good idea it's resulted in genocide and or famine every single time people like you have tried it.

the Nazi regime decided what was good for common welfare was exterminating Jewish people. Governments are not gods and I reject your religion.

you're making a distinction without a difference but benevolent authority is absolutely a dictator. Every single dictator that ever committed to genocide started out as a benevolent authority.

I am a libertarian and I know you use that as a cut down but it's a compliment to me authoritarians or the destroyer of humanity.

never a greater compliment has been paid to me so thank you.

I would die a very happy man if I knew that I was breaking authoritarianism.

Your world must never be fixed. It is a pox on humanity.

it's a work in regress. And I hope people like me stop all in every inch of progress and make it absolutely as hard as we possibly can for people like you.

You sadly are my mortal enemy in the enemy of humanity. Authoritarianism is the single greatest threat to our species.

that's only you valuable if the only thing you want in life is simply not to starve to death.

when people try that it is in genocide and famine. So it either works for none or it works for most.

Essentially how government works is most incompetent people are running things so they can begin to attempt to control population.

only production of late cycle goods they still need finite raw material we're watching this happen before our eyes with the electric cars and the material they need to make batteries.

AI doesn't do that slaves in the Congo do that. That's what your dictatorship needs slaves, an underclass

How is poverty defined? By the way we define it it will never be eradicated as long as someone's labor is worth more than someone else's.

The only way to eradicate poverty is to eradicate humanity and that's what you and your authoritarian model is designed to do.

I think survival is better than Extinction

 

I introduced the idea of 'traits' compared with 'rights' without definitions (as you requested) as a starting point to expose your delusional Libertarian ideology.

Now you are waffling to hide the fact you are lost: you need to address traits versus rights.

Exactly

The law isn't to serve government, law is created by government to avoid anarchy, to serve the people who are then required to submit to the created law.

"many individuals"...eg, 50% +1?

But hopefully, the conscience and reason of individuals in the aggregate ie "many individuals", will agree the common welfare and collective security is "dire".

You Libertarian ideology of voluntary agreement as the basis for successful, non-anarchic, community relations is obviously delusional, given the range of traits exhibited by individuals.

Nazis rose to power in a chaotic world of economic Depression and national ambition at the expense of well-ordered global relations.

You are confusing nurture (mommy) versus traits (greed, altruism etc). which require adjudication by government.

Er...education is required for all, by law, for the betterment of society.

And as for 'rights', they are the topic of this thread: we know they don't exist other than by definition in law.

Greed/ego-based Libertarianism (no taxation etc) needs to be countered by good governance, or even benevolent authority, to promote the common welfare.

Er.... government doesn't "keep material goods for themselves", government creates a system of resource mobilization and distribution on behalf of the population.

Unique.....eg, the highest number of gun deaths, highest inequality, and greatest political hyper-partisanship of any 1st world country? The Capitol riots alone have damaged US-style "freedom".

Your comment ("500,000 versus 499,000") was based on obfuscation/ Libertarian rubbish.

and you say you can write plain english - try again with that sentence.

But it seems you are saying law should be created by the minority.....regardless of their "values" .

Llke I said, this thread has shown individual rights have to be defined in law.

(but your english is deteriorating into meaningless word salads..)

So the colonists defeated the British military.

But today, only the privileged, the clever, or the criminal are winning....

The split exists because the current economic system pits taxpayer against taxpayer.

Note: the government doesn't need YOUR money to govern, but that's another story (see MMT).

But given the current economic orthodoxy, you resort to lying about the relative contributions of various groups; everyone has something to contribute, consistent with individual capabilities.

Both parties are following obsolete economic orthodoxy which pits taxpayer against taxpayer.

Interestingly both Trump and Biden/Yellen are ignoring government debt: Yellen has called for the debt ceiling to be lifted to $32 trillion. They are both MMTers; the US treasury and central bank (Fed) can't "run out" of US dollars.

Back to front, as to be expected from a Libertarian commenting on law.

The first codification of law - Hammurabi's - required the people to submit to it:

"The Hammurabi code of laws, a collection of 282 rules, established standards for commercial interactions and set fines and punishments to meet the requirements of justice".

and the people are not one, but divided, by natural individual traits and different capabilities

Wrong conclusion. Trade unionists are often oppressed by the current neoliberal orthodoxy which claims government or business can't afford to pay them a fair (living) wage. By all means speak up for trade unionists.......

Your Libertarian ideology based on non- existent 'natural' rights is thoroughly exposed and discredited. Nazis made their own evil laws

History is not a determinant of the future, and benevolent authority/law is one way to fix our broken world; the current global mess governed by "freedom values" proves it.

Disproved above. We all DESIRE liberty, but we must all submit to rule of law.

You can say law is 'authoritarian' if you like; I'm interested in the product of law.

Oh dear, now you are devolving into insanity, saying a world without war between nations, and a world which eradicates poverty, is a pox on humanity.

thanks for exposing the evil of your Libertarianism, for all to see.

The necessities - healthy food, safe housing, adequate clothing and access to essential utilities - can be provided for all, there is no scarcity of essentials

More false "freedom" narratives. Perhaps a meritocracy might suit you (laughs).

So ...efficient public transport may be required to transition to 100% renewables . Gasp.....

Back to front again; 3rd world economies - and slaves in the Congo - are a consequence of 1st world greed and indifference, overseen by the IMF: Instant Misery Fund.

The worth of labour as determined in 'invisible hand' competitive private sector markets ignores the value of labour in the essential caring industries. (for both people and the environment).

another absurd comment.....benevolent authority, or even just an economy which works for all, won't eradicate humanity; benevolent means "kind" or "respecting life".

Now YOU are arguing for mere survival (except for the wealthy), with the chaos of endless wars (in the age of MAD, no less) and entrenched poverty, as opposed to sustainable prosperity for all (which is not the same as 'equality of outcome').

 

I reject your authoritarian ideology. I'm proud to be libertarian.

The fact that you think it's evil means it's not.

 

Hoookay......

And the fact Trump's supporters thought he won the election, leading to the murder and mayhem in the Capitol riot, shows the limitations of Libertarian greed-based, "freedom" thinking.

 

Torus 34 noted: "Ideally, rights should be based in what a human society needs to insure the well-being of all its members"

So we are dealing with concepts involving "rights" or rather, desirable ideals, such as universal well-being and prosperity (not necessarily the same as 'equality of outcome').

Imagined solutions are not necessarily rabbit-holes or dead ends; laws and well-designed economic systems promoting the common welfare may be able to achieve the desired outcomes.

I think most people of good-will agree with the principles of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the problem is how to implement them.

Don't give up.....

"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe" HG Wells.

 

It shows what happens when individuals and nations claim a sovereign "right" to arm themselves....

ie when 'freedom' is decided by who is the last man, or nation, standing, after the shooting stops.

 

Correct; the losers of an election have to agree to accept the result, in a democratic form of government. Otherwise ...see Jan 6th. Capitol riots.

Likewise for an authoritarian model of governance - say a one-party meritocracy - which is not a military dictatorship.

Sheer nonsense, study economics and market failure.

 

The idea is that under a regime of international law which outlaws war, disputes between nations are decided by relevant international institutions, compared with the dispute-settlement machinery via a nation's own supreme court.

Under International law outlawing war, nations will only need to maintain police forces capable of dealing with internal dissent. Nations will no longer NEED to maintain militaries to defend themselves from external aggression.

Just as we don't allow a veto among the judges in a nation' supreme court, so the veto in the UNSC must be abolished, inter alia, to implement effective international law.

 

The only person killed at the Capitol was Ashley Babbitt.

And people should be allowed to protest the idea that this protest shouldn't have happened is authoritarianism.

 

This thread sucks.

 

This, like a thousand other issues, revolve around a major problem of human nature- the desire to negotiate reality to accomplish a perceived goal. That doesn't change reality, just hides from it a while and misleads the people.

There are two crucial elements present in virtually everything we do. Those are- Power and Responsibility.
Power mean the ability to make things happen, Responsibility mean being accountable for what you do make happen, or what you failed to make happen when you had the duty to do so.

In truth- these things are not negotiable, they are what they are. Yet they are the most negotiated elements of human interaction, all in the name of manipulating others, taking their power, evading your own responsibility by dumping it on others. Nothing is more destructive to our ability to maintain an orderly and just society.

I hold myself and everyone else to these standards. Not negotiable. I'm responsible for what is in my power- not responsible for what is not.
I'm responsible for the way I use my power. I'm not responsible for the way others use theirs.

The concept of rights is relatively simple in this regard. I have the right to control what is in my power- I have the responsibility for how it's used. Those are my rights...

When others try to make me responsible for what is not in my power, they are abusing my rights.

The power of an individual hinges upon keeping the perception of these two things straight. The power of a society does as well- but it is far harder to achieve, when the members of that society refuse to step up to the plate and accept them.

 

Neither do I.

I can't imagine why you think that of me.

 

I said IF YOU.... that is for you to consider, not a declaration about you.

 

Actually I have before and much more than Das Kapital a text book rife with economic ignorance, and the worst sort of foolishness. During the 1800's in America the average length of a depression, was less than 18 months from beginning to full recovery with no help at all from the government. With government help it can take a full decade to achieve a full recovery. As in Japans lost decade. and the Great Depression.

The notion of a one party meritocracy is silly unless you translate meritocracy as rule by the most treacherous sneakiest back stabbing goon in the crowd.

 

So one big guy busting heads of those he doesn’t like instead of a few smaller guys busting heads of people they don’t like. A realization of the wet dreams of people like Stalin and Hitler and Alexander.

That’s what I figured.

LOL. Where will the international “regime” get leg breakers to keep everyone in line? A mythical land somewhere? Where do UN peacekeepers come from today? Not from my local Sheriff department!

Why would a nation like Russia refrain from invading Ukraine just because they no longer have veto power at the UN? Be specific.

 

I think the notion of natural rights is absurd. Rights are derived from logic and context. A basic fairness that allows people to reach their potential in terms of happiness and productivity. Rights are something that makes life better for individuals, and makes societies work better to be more powerful and productive.

But I don't agree with your first undeniable fact. People are not really born free. People are born almost completely helpless and dependent - ready to learn whatever they need to become a member of their society, but they are subjects to that society. Babies aren't free to choose anything. Being a baby is essentially the opposite of being free and whether growing up leads to freedom depends on where they are born.

I think international law makes sense in principle - at least for the most basic of logically derived rights (e.g. not to be killed or indefinitely imprisoned by the government without a fair trial). But in practice establishing it firmly is out of reach. Cultural differences are too vast, and distrust is too great, to really establish an international law with global reach. And establishing it with global reach would require it to be backed by force that no individual country would dare counter.

 

Nope.

1) Natural rights are our inherent rights by Nature, hence natural.

2) Our inherent, inalienable natural rights are affirmed in the Preamble of the DOI and the COTUS/BOR, and our government was instituted to secure those rights.

3) As far as the idea, philosophy and ideals expressed in the Preamble of the DOI are concerned - and they did not originate with Jefferson - we most certainly are created equal.

Property and the acquisition of property come in many forms, and if you've read Locke you would already know this.

Furthermore, both Locke and the Founding Fathers he influenced considered the right to private property ownership a right. However, while the right to private property ownership may be inalienable, you do have the right to alienate your property.

First of all, rights are not created by men - positive laws and privileges are created by men - and as is the case with rights, human nature is not created by men at all.

Since you're the one confusing the two, by all means separate away!

The entire premise of your argument:



FYI, sovereignty is derived from the individual and association of individuals in every nation. It is not derived from some notion of an international collective or some international body.

By the way, unlike yourself, the men who laid the foundations of Modern international law - Francisco de Vitoria, Hugo Grotius and Alberico Gentili - not only affirmed the existence of natural rights, they based their doctrines of international law on the natural law that is interconnected with natural rights.

 

If rights are made up entirely, then you agree that they are subjective. Therefore, the "right' of some people to rule is entire subjective. There is no objectively legitimate source of political authority. Therefore, all laws made by those who claim to wield political authority are also subjective and no one is morally obligated to obey them.

Consider this. You believe that it is wrong to assault you. I believe that it is right. Which of our claims is superior?

 

So, if I don't value your belief that you have the right not to be assaulted or enslaved, and my friends agree with me, then you don't have any such right? My claim is superior due to my ability to enforce it and you are objectively wrong for believing you are wronged?

 

Anarchy is the belief that no one has the right to violently control other people. So what you are saying is that the vast majority of people want other people to be violently controlled and will take whatever steps - no matter how extreme - are necessary to preserve that power. And, that explains war and genocide.

 

How did they get the right to extract the resources from individuals in order to obtain those houses?