The Origin of the Idea of Natural Rights

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Talon, Apr 7, 2021.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well now you know you made the same point.
    Riots as a result of guv abuse has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anarchy, if thats all you got then you have no point.
    PUHLEASE-spare us, and the US and UK would be the first to tell everyone to stick it square up their asses, smaile, and say; "Make me".
    Maybe if the day ever came that nations did not require arms to defend themselves against other nations then and only then can we look at individuals.
    HUH???
    Those are 'political' rights as a citizen.
    Inherent rights of the man are 'Reserved' in the BoR.
    Damn Im good, I could have written this for the white house (minus a couple things that they stated to imply the power is granted by guv rather than to ourselves, the people jointly and severally. LOL

    The Bill of Rights

    Many Federalists argued, as in Federalist No. 84, that the people surrendered no rights in adopting the Constitution. In several States, however, the ratification debate in some States hinged on the adoption of a bill of rights. The solution was known as the Massachusetts Compromise, in which four States ratified the Constitution but at the same time sent recommendations for amendments to the Congress.

    James Madison introduced 12 amendments to the First Congress in 1789. Ten of these would go on to become what we now consider to be the Bill of Rights. One was never passed, while another dealing with Congressional salaries was not ratified until 1992, when it became the 27th Amendment. Based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the English Bill of Rights, the writings of the Enlightenment, and the rights defined in the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights contains rights that many today consider to be fundamental to America.
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/


    How many times have I said almost exactly that out here?

    So you are saying that the queeny is no longer a sovereign because she agreed to also be a citizen under auspices of parliamentary rule? Seriously?
     
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Writing memorializes everything for future generations.


    Oh sure, to be expected from anyone whos logic and reasoning is precisely backward.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2021
    Talon likes this.
  3. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nothing I've stated is backward, or incorrect.
     
  4. Talon

    Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    46,673
    Likes Received:
    26,230
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Incorrect.

    As the Founders correctly pointed out, our unalienable Natural Rights are inherent in the individual by birth.

    And koko's right - your "logic" and "reasoning" are backwards. All powers/rights are inherent in the individual and conferred to the government, not the other way around. The other way around is how the communist and authoritarian countries that you want to live in operate.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2021
  5. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    which is demonstrably false, as you've been shown.
    nothing I've stated is backwards or incorrect.
    and this is demonstrably false.
     
  6. Talon

    Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    46,673
    Likes Received:
    26,230
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Founders demonstrated this is to be true, and so have I. You are pining for an authoritarian communist state and you are not permitted to have one,

    The Founders and I have demonstrated otherwise.

    It's demonstrably true.

    That you want to live in a communist and authoritarian country is - how did you put it? - despicable.

    At last we have found something we can agree on.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2021
  7. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    as you are fully aware, you have been shown otherwise. Rights were created by man, they do not exist outside of this construct.


    proven false. It's why you can't show us where these rights are written, or came from.

    you are aware it's proven false.
    strawman
    yes, we agree that rights are not inherent, and do not exist in nature. They are human constructs.
     
    a better world likes this.
  8. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No; I showed humans have the capacity to destroy the world, chimps don't.

    Govt. abuse? Well.... certainly the abuse resulting from a dysfunctional economic system that tolerates systemic disadvantage ...which is a cause of riots (aka anarchy): "You are living in poverty, your neighborhoods are like war zones. your schools and hospitals are broken..." DJ Trump.

    Er, the majority of delegates from small nations present at the founding of the UN wanted a UNSC without veto power, for obvious reasons...
    Rule of law is just that; whether an individual or a nation - you don't get to say "make me".

    Correct, but even now most 1st world countries are aghast at the level of gun violence in the US.

    Good grief, after days of debate you are still pushing the crap about "inherent rights", or "political rights", after it's been proved to you all "rights" are human inventions.
    AND that individual sovereignty is delusional, if there is more than one person in the world AND they both desire peace between them. (Lets see...how far did the species make it without rule of law...oh, Cain killed Abel, gosh...not far then).

    Correct. She's a figurehead for traditionalists, who understands the only reason the monarchy still exists is BECAUSE she agrees to be a citizen subject to parliamentary rule.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2021
  9. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fact: A sovereign currency-issuing government can NEVER run out of money, unlike you and I who are users of the currency. Your entire paragraph above is 'flat earth' economics. All of which you would know if you had bothered to study the links I posted. (Admittedly, like the flat earth observation that held for millenia among uneducated folk, the government debt delusion is hard to shake off, because of your own experience with your own household budget).

    That's the thing, the linked articles showed that central bank money creation in itself in NOT the cause of inflation (or devaluation of the currency). Oops.

    How can government serving as employer of last resort when there is no shortage of resources or productive capacity in the economy, be anything other than a good thing. You want involuntary unemployment to exist, when it doesn't have to exist?

    Those two countries are ENTIRELY different cases, so I don't need to compare them at all. Certainly your mainstream flat earth economics-based analysis will be a total waste of space, re those two nations.

    Well of course China's rise began with low wages, whose fault is that? You going to blame China for the pauperization of Detroit and Baltimore?

    Note my underlined. The moment you agree, you have relinquished individual sovereignty, by definition. You are now subject to rule of law, your individuality is no longer sovereign. (Suggestion: avoid traffic infringements; you might be met with a cop who doesn't know a 'taser from a gun).

    If that's true, it would explain why your republican representative system of government is so dysfunctional (manifested inter alia by rioting in the Capitol itself) because it's based on a delusion, as explained above.

    Government derives its powers through individuals agreeing to accept rule of law.

    Still banging on about "inherent rights"? Certainly, achievement of the quest for "a more perfect union" is a measure of good governance.

    Your final long paragraph is merely a repetition of your "inherent rights" delusion.

    While your government is a disaster, according to your own description. I can hardly wait for China to sport a larger nominal GDP than the US (only a decade away according to some analysts), with well above-poverty participation by ALL citizens.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2021
  10. Talon

    Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    46,673
    Likes Received:
    26,230
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, we know the government can print all the money it wants and the economically illiterate and ignorant people who embrace the fantasy that this has no real world consequences see no problem with that because they ignore the evidence that it does. It's no surprise that many of these people are socialists whose ideology, agenda and policies are rooted in fantasies about economics, human nature, etc..

    Oops, the author of your article noticeably fails to address the inconvenient and timeless issue of debasing currency at any length, and who could blame him?

    We all know that there are many causes of inflation, just as we know that printing money can cause not only inflation, but printing money willy-nilly produces hyperinflation.

    Let's conduct a little thought experiment, shall we? Google all of the following search queries "printing money Weimar Germany", "printing money Zimbabwe" and "printing money Venezuela" and see what result you get...

    [​IMG]

    Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic - Wikipedia
    Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe - Wikipedia
    Hyperinflation in Venezuela - Wikipedia

    Isn't that something - what beside the fantasy economics of printing money out the gluteus maximus do we find in common here?

    Hyperinflation.

    Which reminds me of something both funny and sad I saw in a blog from Venezuela - the Stalinist shithole with its failed socialist economic model that made dumpster diving for food the national pastime. It was a photo of the author of the blog - some young smart-assed capitalist running dog - seated at a table covered with stacks of worthless Venezuelan currency, and at the base of the photo ran the line "Don't worry, it's not real socialism!". :lol:

    This is getting fun, even though it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread...

    People can point to any number of reasons, aside from our lack of infinite resources and productive capacity, for why that fantasy is not a good thing, and if you Google "government as employer of last result bad" you can save me the time and bandwidth and find out for yourself. Here's one of the first of many results:

    Employer of Last Resort
    https://fee.org/articles/employer-of-last-resort/

    Yes, they are two entirely different cases, as I pointed out earlier which makes your decision to bring up China when we were talking about VZ somewhat curious, yet useful just the same. At a glance, we see one country that was a communist/socialist basket case and improved its economy by liberalizing it (not fully by any stretch of the imagination, of course) and in the other we see a country that became a communist/socialist basket case and destroyed its economy by socializing it. Another way to look at it is one country (China) moved away from your fantasy economics and the other (VZ) ate your fantasy economics whole hog.

    Of course, this really has nothing to do with the subject of this thread, so if you want to continue debating this you should start a thread on it instead of derailing this one. Give me the link and I'll be glad to continue discussing and debate it with you there.

    Why would I do what you suggest?

    Now, we might be finally getting closer to something relevant to this thread:

    No, you don't relinquish your individual sovereignty, and note my underlined. Are you familiar with the concept of consent? It's an act of individual sovereignty, and I consent to our republican system of government and the rule of law provided that it operates within the confines of the social contract that has been articulated by our Founding Fathers and before that John Locke and going all the way back to William of Ockham (wow - we're getting back to the subject of this thread!).

    Furthermore, relevant to the subject of this thread, you might be interested to know that Medieval civil jurists, canonists, decretists and glossers realized, as we do today, that where there is no law commanding or prohibiting, there exists a zone of autonomy where people can exercise their individual sovereignty to their heart's content (again, within the parameters of natural and positive law).

    Our government is dysfunctional because it is run by human beings, and only a fool would expect perfection out of government or demand more of it. I accept that government cannot and never will be perfect, demand as little of it as possible and live where I am subjected to as little of it and the interference of my fellow citizens.

    In its broadest sense, it would be closer to the truth to state that government derives its powers from the individual (period). Of course, we consent to our Constitution, rule of law and republican system of government, and of course the government is not above the Constitution and rule of law, even though many of the people in our government mistakenly believe otherwise.

    I know - some people, particularly authoritarians, have a problem with that.

    Certainly, we all have different ideas of what constitutes "a more perfect union". On one hand, you have the Individualist idea and on the other you have the Collectivist/Socialist idea, and in between you have every idea imaginable.

    No, it's an assessment of the shortcomings and failures of our government, which begs the question why anyone would want more of it. Self-interest? Greed? The lust for power? Utopian fantasies? Stupidity?

    Except the hundreds of thousands if not millions being held in concentration camps and political prisons, not to mention the ones who are being forced to "participate" in China (Tibetans, the formerly free citizens of Hong Kong, et al). Of course, that's not a problem for you - inherent rights are a "delusion" - and the tyrants in Beijing obviously agree with you. The Chinese people have no inherent natural rights - they have only the alienable privileges that Xi Jinping & Co. choose to give them.

    Since you're so fond of the place you should move there. Walk the walk. Talk is cheap.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
  11. Talon

    Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    46,673
    Likes Received:
    26,230
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Since we're drifting off-topic I'm going to get back to my pledge to post some more articles relevant to the subject of this discussion.

    The first is a book review of Brian Tierney's The Idea of Natural Rights (cited in the OP) from the Cornell Law Review:

    Medieval Origins of the Western Natural Rights Tradition: The Achievement of Brian Tierney
    https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/216738485.pdf
     
  12. Talon

    Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    46,673
    Likes Received:
    26,230
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here's a speech Tierney delivered at the Chicago School of Law in 1994 - three years before the publication of The Idea of Natural Rights. A good chunk of this material discusses the content in the latter chapter of his book covering the work conducted by the School of Salamanca in the 16th Century following the "discovery" of North and South America.

    Natural Rights: Before and After Columbus
    https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=fulton_lectures
     
  13. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK.

    [link]

    MMT: overcoming the political divide. | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics

    The point is: international co-operation is absolutely necessary to manage trade, if we wish to achieve development in all countries, taking into account the different natural resource endowment in each nation, to avoid, eg, the central American and ME refugee disasters, as well as intra-national disasters like the pauperization of Detroit and Baltimore, and the 1st world "rust belt". IOW, the WTO needs to be instructed by fair trade, not "free trade".

    OK let's try this:

    The moment you CONSENT, you have relinquished individual sovereignty, by definition. You are now subject to rule of law, your individuality is no longer sovereign.

    Once again, you draw erroneous conclusions by relying on your OWN conception of reality.

    Consenting is NOT "an act of individual sovereignty", it only seems so to you; in reality you are only one of many who need to "consent" to forgo their individual sovereignty, in order to establish rule of law. Do you think that "WE the People" would have cared whether YOU consented to the Constitution or not?

    Yes, that's nice. I can set my alarm clock for 7 or 8 am. I'm free!!!

    Note my underlined.

    As for your "demands": sad to say, you are no longer living in frontier America with a vast new continent up for grabs (ignoring the native inhabitants who had insufficient weapons-technology to fight back). Today the entire GLOBAL human population is closely inter-related in a GLOBAL economy which is rapidly approaching the planet's ecological, bio-diversity and climate-change limits, requiring co-operative governance at international level. Oops.

    Note my underlined. We are talking about "government' in the abstract, being the institution by which rule of law is instituted, so the underlined is an oxymoron, or impossibility. Of course a particular governing party may seek to abuse the rule of law for its own benefit, which is another matter altogether.

    I have a problem with a concept - "inherent natural rights" - which is entirely man-made, being considered as somehow existing in nature, independent of Man.

    Note my underlined.

    Of course we all have our own ideas...BECAUSE there is no such thing as "inherent rights" that exist in nature, outside of humans.

    Addressed above. Therefore I hope by now you can now understand the basis the confusion revealed by those questions.

    Note my underlined. That's correct; "inherent natural rights" don't exist.

    As for China's government:

    Western accusations of "genocide" against China in Xinjiang
    are misguided. Why?
    Because fundamentalist Islamist ideologues want a universal Islamic caliphate, based on the Koran as the actual "Word of God";such fundamentalist views engender Islamist terrorism (and we should recognize NO extant scripture is the actual Word of God; God obviously reveals Himself to humans in an ongoing "revelation", however manifested).
    Therefore China is right to establish re-education camps to deal with the cultural phenomenon of backward Islamist fundamentalist
    separatists in Xinjiang. Otherwise China would experience what the US has faced - at huge cost - with the Taliban in Afghanistan for 20 years, with no decisive outcome.

    Meanwhile, the West condemns "Marxist" ideology while forgetting 'democracy' is also an ideology - and moreover one which accepts human rights abuses such as minority incarceration rates 5 times that of whites, with diminished life-expectancy, and entrenched poverty along racial and class divisions.

    Therefore "democracy" ideologues are hypocrites. China has lifted more people out of poverty than any nation in history, via 'socialism with Chinese characteristics', which combines free markets with a command economy
    (unlike the USSR which was a command economy only). And democracy ideologues - hypocrites - in HK and Taiwan DO want to separate from the mainland. The US of course is piling on, hoping to create chaos in China, because its own economic system lacks the sheer productivity of the Chinese system, meaning the US will soon be eclipsed by China.

    You deny the possibility of effective governance....BECAUSE you hold that individual sovereignty is more important than community cohesion....BECAUSE you hold to the fantasy of "inherent natural rights".









     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2021
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The British Sovereign can be seen as havingtwo roles: Head of State, and 'Head of theNation'.As Head of State, The Queen undertakesconstitutional and representational duties whichhave developed over one thousand years of history.There are inward duties, with The Queen playinga part in State functions in Britain. Parliamentmust be opened, Orders in Council have to beapproved, Acts of Parliament must be signed,and meetings with the Prime Minister must be held.There are also outward duties of State, when TheQueen represents Britain to the rest of the world.For example, The Queen receives foreignambassadors and high commissioners, entertainsvisiting Heads of State, and makes State visitsoverseas to other countries, in support ofdiplomatic and economic relations.As 'Head of Nation', The Queen's role is lessformal, but no less important for the social andcultural functions it fulfils.These include: providing a focus for nationalidentity, unity and pride; giving a sense ofstability and continuity; recognising success,achievement and excellence; and supportingservice to others, particularly through publicservice and the voluntary sector. While political parties change constantly, the Sovereign continues as Head of State, providinga stable framework within which a governmentcan introduce wide-ranging reforms.

    Appears you dont even understand your own guv let alone ours. If thats just a figurehead Id hate to see president.
    we inherited it from you!

    [​IMG]
    Not required
    So when you join the polo club, and agree to play by their rules, you give up ALL your rights, your sovereignty, that is loonacy! Since you are just pedaling agenda this wont make any difference anyway but for others, america was put together as the people being sovereign, jointly and severally.

    The status of americans were modeled after the king, as a sole corp with rule over one, themself, proof; when this country was setup and our rights were respected and not yet trampled, people owned property in alod, and that only a sovereign has those rights. One of the first things the states simply stole with no legal authority to do so.

    It may be said, indeed, that the King is not more an ideal personage than a parson or other corporation sole; that it is merely the office, which is converted by a fiction of law into a person ; and that the object of this transmutation is to have the same identical rights kept on foot, and continued for ever by a succession of individuals, possessing the same privileges, and charged with the same duties. But, on reflection, it will appear that there but differ, is a wide difference between the King and other porpora- other corporations sole. Derations
    ' Blackstone, i. 271. iv. 2. 2 Ibid. i. 252. 257.
    3 Ibid. i. 469. 472. 4 Ibid. i. 467, 468. 5 Ibid. i. 477. , . o i i o


    I cant even imagine where you dig up the crazy **** you post, but you aint talking about merca.

    So you are really claiming that we are slaves to our own kleptocratic guv!
    Which incidentally is very TRUE if inherent rights have been abolished by the criminal guv!
    Several states, the people voted to ratify the constitution, Id say probly.
    Particular? This is a kleptocracy, not a denocracy, wake up ffs.
    So you think chimps are smarter than humans huh?
    Inherent rights are the core of all social structure, for all creatures exhibiting a social structure where one has a need to interact with another.
    Why because they didnt send you an email declaring them?
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2021
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh wait, I see what they are saying now!

    So if chimps ever get to the point they can 'write' and list their inherent rights on a piece of paper then it will be chimp made rights and no longer inherent, pure brilliance! :roll:

    Oddly enough thats exactly the gubmint MO used to steal our rights!

    Euphemisms, metaphors, and non-sequitur logical constructs!
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2021
  16. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Monarchy has been abolished in most nations, even ancient Rome got rid of it. And the US President has too much power, being able to frustrate the will of the elected government, which itself has too little power owing to a division of powers in a Constitution that is paranoid about government power.

    Which is why China has done away with the idiocy of adversarial, 2-party, blind-leading-the-blind, elections, preferring a one-party meritocracy. Xi Jinping was accepted as the leader by the consent of the CPC to lead the nation through rocky international waters, for as long as that consent is given by the the party.

    Note:

    1. "secure to the people a uniform and stable medium of exchange".
    2. "But this wise provision of the Constitution" etc.
    3...the claimed "subversion of the money power" etc, was indeed due to the classical British system of exchange based on gold and silver, controlled by PRIVATE banks, with no role for the Bank of England to create money directed to PUBLIC purposes.

    Guess why central America, Africa, and ME have created 70 million economic refugees, and counting.

    Hint: the present evil US-led world IMF and World bank financial system, including international trade, in force since the end of WW2, actually results in a net transfer of wealth FROM the global South to the rich North, due to terms of debt repayments and other provision associated with loans. Educate yourself.
    [link]
    Financial Globalization, North-South Wealth Distribution and Resource Transfers | Inter Press Service (ipsnews.net)

    "Resource transfers from the South to the North through financial channels will continue unabated as long as capital flows remain unrestricted, the international reserves system favours a handful of rich countries which can also pursue self-seeking policies without regard to their global repercussions".

    Note my underlined. Citizenship is not membership of a club. America was "put together" by those qualified to create government, to achieve "a more perfect union".


    All of which shows just how confused they all were in those days, while coming to grips with government without the guidance of the 'Divine Right' of monarchs.


    Sure I am; poor merca - after 200 years, the mob trashes the Capitol itself......

    I'm saying your government is based on a fantasy of individual sovereignty...indeed, the Capitol riots ARE the anarchy that naturally results from government based on that fantasy.

    As usual, your conclusions are oxymoronic: rule of law by definition cannot be criminal... though YOUR ideology leads faulty government characterized by massive social unrest.

    You are still struggling with the difference between the individual, and the community made up of those individuals, (whether state, nation, or the community of the UN).

    No; and to deal with your following post: chimps evolved from ...well go back far enough, and you will find they - like us - evolved from crocodiles which still exist as a species. Which means apparently species cease evolving, but instead other species break away from that original species, forming a new species.

    Wrong. INSTINCT is the core of all social structure in the animal kingdom, except humans have added the concept of 'justice' to that instinct-based core. Checkmate. (Chimps and crocodiles don't concern themselves with justice, though chimps no doubt possess a more developed sense of individuality and community than crocodiles).

    Well....if you want to put it that way, yes.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2021
  17. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Speaking of 'kleptocracy':

    [link, referring to the fall of the USSR]

    Kleptocracy Is on the Rise in America - The Atlantic


    "In his testimony, Palmer even mentioned Russia’s newly installed and little-known prime minister (whom he mistakenly referred to as Boris Putin), accusing him of “helping to loot Russia.”
    The United States, Palmer made clear, had allowed itself to become an accomplice in this plunder. His assessment was unsparing. The West could have turned away this stolen cash; it could have stanched the outflow (of Russian state wealth) to shell companies and tax havens. Instead, Western banks waved Russian loot into their vaults**. Palmer’s anger was intended to provoke a bout of introspection—and to fuel anxiety about the risk that rising kleptocracy posed to the West itself."

    ** of which ordinary citizens in the US never saw one dollar, while Russia was plunged into poverty, with life expectancy falling dramatically.

    Meanwhile China began its equally dramatic rise on the back of a unique combination of private sector free market competition, and public sector ("socialist") subsidization of low-wage workers' basic necessities.

    Yet the democracy ideologues in HK and Taiwan are shouting "freedom", because the delusion of individual sovereignty is indeed powerful, as already noted.

    Climate change, more frequent pandemics, loss of biodiversity, failed "democratic" states, poverty amid rising inequality, and looming ecological collapse should just about be what's required to wake them up from their 'freedom" delusion, at last.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2021
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    as I pointed out and you are so busy apologizing you completely missed the point,

    [​IMG]
    The problems today were foreseen at the inception and are totally by design.
    ...and you want us to jump from the frying pan to the fire
    because you are none the wiser that its by design.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2021
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hate to pop your bubble but the UK is a monarchy lol
    OMG! there oughta be a law against frustrating the guv! how dare anyone frustrate the guv!

    I agree that the two party system is seriously flawed however I don't agree with your solution.
    it's certainly not stable with one debacle after another under the control of the banking cabal, which was precisely the reason for setting the system up the way it was set up prior to the subterfuge used to abolish it.
    if you call this **** mess we're in now and the complete dissolution of property rights wise you should rethink the meaning of 'better' life.
    no amendment was made to the Constitution, the banking cabal operating in this country is 100% illegal and has been since its inception. the Constitution was simply ignored. the English system depended on the banking cabal to loan money into existence, again you are making no sense.
    because the banking cabal did everything in their power to bust their balls and force them into joining the banking club, Chavez, so we moved in American muscle and the people being smarter than you and the average American revolted and they ran to Russia for protection against US/UK/banking hegemony.
    it most certainly is if you want to look at the history of this country which is a virtual carbon copy of the UK! Queeny even modified our as in the US social security system back in 1997. seems your understanding of history and government is severely flawed.
    oh really, exactly what are those qualifications, lawyers from England?
    do you have any idea what more perfect union me even means? the only thing more perfect than our perfect union that we have today is a dictatorship with absolute tyranny.
    please get serious, it was a copy paste job of the UK system of government to set up a corporation call the United States of America.
    you seemed really confused, the government it's a joint arrangement agreed to by individual sovereigns.
    once again the capital riots took place because of the discontent with the despotic rules which have been and continue to get worse unlawfully imposed on we the people by we the guv and they're just-us-club
    you simply don't understand the scope of what you're talking about because a government can most certainly be criminal there are plenty of them including the one we live in, it's called kleptocratic despotism.
    once again you don't understand the nature of the problem, it's because the the law we have today is in total the law we have today is in total violation and in many cases contradictory to our constitution as a result of internal criminal behavior that your British system allows.
    I proved the difference you're the one with the narrow uninformed scope of understanding.
    again you deflect with a strawman response proving you missed or are evading the point entirely.
    so now you want us to believe instinct is not an inherent characteristic of a species is somehow different than inherent rights which is also characteristic of a species? ****ing seriously?
    well now you just proved that you don't know anything about social structure and it's evolution.
    https://news.janegoodall.org/2018/07/10/top-bottom-chimpanzee-social-hierarchy-amazing/
    thank you for agreeing with that. lol
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2021
  20. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nonsense. They were honest (though confused) men attempting to create a better form of government than rule by Divine Right of the monarch in Britain. They failed BECAUSE they believed in government via 'sovereignty of the individual', owing to the then current nonsense philosophies about "inherent natural rights of individuals" - forgivable in the age before Marx and Darwin, and which pitted individuals against one-another, to the detriment of the community. ...And therein is the meaning of "a more perfect union" you can't understand.

    As to the "banking cabal", that indeed represents - and always has - the epitome of private self-interest.
    [link]
    Who’s Afraid of MMT? - The Business & Financial Times (thebftonline.com)

    By James K. Galbraith

    "As anyone who has ever been responsible for legislative oversight of central bankers knows, they do not like to have their authority challenged. Most of all, they will defend their mystique – that magical aura that hovers over their words, shrouding a slushy mix of banality and baloney in a mist of power and jargon".
     
  21. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If the founders actually believed what they wrote, the would not have enslaved a whole bunch of black people.
    They would not have treated women like property.

    The founders don't believe in inherent rights, they personally didn't grant them to black people or women.
    Actions speak louder than words, and the founders actions were there are no inherent rights.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2021
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They still had the old rules to deal with, like dowery etc, and slaves were considered property, you dont wave a magic wand and twinkle our nose and it all magically disappears. Yesterday you went into slavery to pay off debts today you get loans and your labor is enslaved to the bank to pay off the debt.
    Nope, people like you are confused because they did draw pictures, to understand them requires a lot of work and research that you clearly did not do your due diligence.
    Oh, its either sovereignty or slavery, you prefer slavery for yourself thats your prerogative.
    Ah yes, commie is the solution isnt it, well we seen how well your fantasy worked for russia.
    If you want to label Hotel California governance 'more perfect', its fits the commie agenda for sure.
    and those who dont are assassinated, nice doing business with ya!
     
  23. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which means they really didn't believe in what they wrote.
    If they believed in inherent rights, the would have lived by the words they wrote. But they knew it was man made rights.

    And if you truly believed in inherent rights, you'd not be defending owning people and taking away those inherent rights.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2021
    a better world likes this.
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you are confusing slavery with involuntary servitude.
    So you think they should have immediately turned the slaves out on the streets to starve? You dont think thats inhumane huh?
    They had no rights therefore anyone could abuse them anyway they wanted with impunity and you think they should have immediately kicked their asses to the curb. damn
     
  25. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Slavery is systematized economic oppression, as part of government structure. Involuntary servitude refers to oppression from an external source, as perceived by the oppressed individual. Again your nonsense about 'inherent individual rights' leads you to erroneous conclusions. You are merely an ideologue pushing Libertarian dogma. Fact is chimps do not concern themselves with "justice" by which humans mean elimination of oppression from an external source, in all its forms.

    And as dairyair said, the writers of the constitution didn't believe in "inherent rights" ....
    1. because they were self-interested hypocrites (likely, because we naturally ALL are, until some knowledge of individual motivation and self awareness sinks in....OR
    2. because like you they believed the nonsense you pushed that chimps (but not crocodiles) are aware of the concept of "justice", and that therefore 'justice' and inherent rights exist in nature.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2021
    dairyair likes this.

Share This Page