| Pages:
1
2 |
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
There are TWO aspects that will never work comfortably together. I have once heard this whole discussion encapsulated this way:
* "A man would have the right to sing at night; but to the point of disturbing the sleep of his neighbor, he is curtailed from doing so."
But where one man goes to bed at 10pm and another at 12pm, where is the "rule of law" (the community's decision) to draw the line? If at one level;
another group feels cheated, etc, etc. Not all people can be pleased with rules set by others, therefore a law is made via the numerically larger
group.
* To achieve control of the numerically larger group the concept of politics is created. Politics by it's very nature is manipulation to enhance
control.
From a "crime control" standpoint:
One man's fear of attack places demands on another man who has no desire to attack (but does understand & wishes to be protected), therefore that
man feels threatened by the imposition of a rule or law which keeps him from protecting himself. We have been told (by politicians) that we do not
need to protect ourselves in a civilized society; that the Police will do that for us.
We realize the intrinsic falsehood of this - if only through a numeric model.
In the end, one man wants a sword (firearm, club, skunk gland, whatever...) to protect himself - that another man sees as a threat in that the power
that rests in that sword - is not his, but his neighbor's.
And the Politician's use of FEAR continues on BOTH sides of the issue. Not because of the logic of [a particular] fear but because a politician's job
is to be re-elected.
|
|
|
argyrium
Hazard to Others
Posts: 123
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Pacific
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Reduced to two words: liberal projection.
|
|
|
JohnWW
International Hazard
Posts: 2849
Registered: 27-7-2004
Location: New Zealand
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Liberal?? I would call it Fa$cist!
|
|
|
argyrium
Hazard to Others
Posts: 123
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Pacific
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
"Liberalism" and Fascism are not opposites. They both are forms of socialism, and ... "progressive". Both imply and require the State to strongly
hold and assert power over the governed.
I just want to be left alone...
Anecdotally, I live most of the time in Hawai'i were the state would put me in jail for a very long time for protecting my family or me from a lethal
threat - even in my own home were I to use a firearm to defend/confront an intruder. Hawai'i is one of our more "progressive" states.
"To Keep and Bear Arms
An 82-year-old woman was approached by a man in Sierra Vista, Arizona, in a Walmart parking lot when he began to threaten her. "This is your day," the
man told her. "You are too old to be alive anyway." He then took her cane away and began beating her with it. However, he was unaware that she was
carrying her handgun, which she quickly pulled from her purse and began firing at the suspect. Witnesses nearby were alerted by the gunshots and came
to help the elderly woman. The suspect was taken into custody by police shortly afterward. Impending charges include attempted murder. The courageous
woman later told the media, "If I go naturally or to a sickness or something, fine. I'm ready to go, but I'm not ready to let some idiot like that
take me out."
"when seconds count, the Police are only min. away"
She'd be locked up were this to occur here.
Both IrC and quicksilver are spot-on, me thinks.
Best.
The more control our governments exert, in the area of chemophobia/anti-drug/terror, whatever, the less we will be able to enjoy the freedoms of
private experimentation.
[Edited on 29-3-2010 by argyrium]
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
The subtle point should not be lost upon anyone
that in response to the largely rhetorical question
" what are my true, bona fide, inalienable rights? "
the more honest answer is found more often in
the askers own assertion of what are their rights,
rather than in any answer whatever to be gotten from another,
except perhaps an answer from God who would more
often be the giver of not only rights but of everything else
that others would try to take away by usurpations
disrespecting the highest authority, and substituting
their own ideas instead for what is wisdom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmfY_ezb9j8&feature=relat... Here Beside Me
[Edited on 29-3-2010 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
Ramiel
Vicious like a ferret
Posts: 484
Registered: 19-8-2002
Location: Room at the Back, Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-demented
|
|
Rosco, your answer was unintelligible to me and a few others. Either sleep on it or stop posting in delirium.
More broadly, all please be aware of the global rule against political debates. I don't want this to turn into cathartic socialist bashing again
because your goddamn president passed a healthcare bill.
don't start throwing terms like Liberalism, liberalism and communism around if you haven't first looked 'em up, or I'll fucking delete your posts.
Regards
Caveat Orator
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
I do feel that there are certain rights that, without completely rational justification (which is rare for me I think), should always be.
Not only is the "nanny-state" nonsense not very effective but it denies the rights of people even more than necessary. In a perfect society
individuals would be able to own nuclear weapons if they wish, because no one would ever use them in a way that resulted in the suffering of other
human beings. Obviously we don't live in a perfect society because we all know it would soon be dismantled if something like that were to happen.
Sometimes I like to take the utilitarian approach and say, "Greatest happiness, greatest number of people (or vice versa)". But what does that mean?
I am with the last few posters in "what I feel should be" but it is possible to argue that, in some cases, that utilitarian model conflicts with large
amounts of freedom (which causes greater happiness, doing what you want or not being injured? for example).
The only way to, through pure "logic", rationalize rights that can't be taken away is to say that a god gave them to us. But is that really logical
or rational? Not really methinks.
So, I am at an impasse. I know the way I think things should be but with no 100% rational justification for it. Damn.
P.S. Rosco's post was...transluscent. I could understand it but it was a little muddled.
[Edited on 3-29-2010 by MagicJigPipe]
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Daring to mix philosophy, law, and religion is bound to result
in an expression which sounds like convoluted meaning of life
kind of stuff. I would beg everyones pardon for my ineptness for failing
to speak with greater perceived clarity, for my lack of skill at lying
that comes only with long practice at politics, admitting freely I am no politician.
Do you even have a "right" to have a heartbeat, for as long as you shall live ?
[Edited on 29-3-2010 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | | In a perfect society individuals would be able to own nuclear weapons if they wish, because no one would ever use them in a way that resulted in the
suffering of other human beings. |
Perfect!
Mr Butterfingers has added to his arsenal by buying another 500 megaton device!
But seriously, in a less imperfect world all politicians would be fitted with a device which would deliver an excruciatingly painful sub-fatal
electric shock whenever said politicians uttered a falsehood.
They would also be required to undergo regular I.Q. tests, the results of which would be available to all. . .
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
Some years back there was a rather strong push for term limits in various elected offices. The idea being that if someone simply COULD NOT BE a career
politician - that the bastards would have to focus on why they are there in the first place. Continued power of that nature allows money to fall from
the sky if networking is done as a side-by-side with re-election focus...& we, the public are the looser as a result.
Personally, I would not define myself as a Conservative or a Liberal because that would mean (to me) that I fall lock-step w/ some predefined
perspective. Personally, I would not "vote Party" because there are a lot of people on BOTH sides of the picture that are just too immature, stupid,
or foolhardy to get my vote.
[Edited on 31-3-2010 by quicksilver]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
