The Real Problem

[Falsedawn]

The founding document of the nation acknowledged they had the inalienable right to liberty. ffs it's what Lincoln routinely cited in his anti-slavery arguments. The DOI explicitly states where we get our rights from. And a textual analysis of the Constitution will show you that it isn't granting rights to individuals, it's protecting the rights that we already have by virtue of being born

And natural fundamental rights aren't dictated by the fkn Supreme Court lol. Lincoln had a lot to say about the SCOTUS as well

http://www.virginia.edu/woodson/courses/aas-hius366a/lincoln.html

And I guess it turned out that Lincoln was right

Correct, the founding document of our country. Had that founding document been written differently, then our rights would be different. And that's the whole point. The society we live in, from its inception, enshrined rights that it felt were out of the reach of a moral government. Those rights weren't ordained by any objective entity, they were defined by men of great philosophical insight.

That we have to define these things tells you exactly where they come from, the authority originally doing the definitions. This wasn't a scrying of some arcane knowledge. That we live in a society that we believe to be free means that they made good choices, but make no mistake that those choices were made and that they were not set in stone when they were being made. Locke said that we had a right to "life, liberty, and property" after all.

 

[Greoric]

It's a lot harder to compete with roadways than loaves of bread, my friend. I'm no statist, not even close. I am tethered to reality like everyone else, though.

Your argument that somebody's rights were being trampled on just struck me as funny. Roads don't exist unless someone builds them, and whoever that is will have the ability to make rules for their use. The irony is most of those rules exist to protect life and property.

Anyway, didn't mean to ruffle your feathers, I was just having a go.

The rules aren't there to protect life and property, they're there principally so you continue on like the tax livestock that you are (myself included). Sure the people who control the land that build and maintain the roads (in our case that productive effort is outsourced for 3 fold its cost) certainly make the rules. In the instance where you find their funding to be noncompulsory, its amazing how much better the products and services get. Then again, I suppose any inelasticity in demand is the same as perfect inelasticity, and therefore the only way to allocate resources is through a compulsory funded monopoly.... because reasons.... or something.

Amazing though how there's private thoroughfares all over the US, and we don't here about the same abuses about the property owners extorting people for traveler's money.

 

[Falsedawn]

The Chinese are also responsible for the worst mass slaughter of its own people in history. Opportunity cost is a bitch.

In any event, back on topic, I suppose you concede that the white man whipping your ancestors for not picking the cotton fast enough was, A-OK yes?

The simple fact that you think that "the chinese slaughtered their people" was a valid response to that post means that we're done here. That's full retard. You should be able to do better than that.

 

[Greoric]

The simple fact that you think that "the chinese slaughtered their people" was a valid response to that post means that we're done here. That's full retard. You should be able to do better than that.

Sure sure. So no moral problems with your great great grand father wetting leather for not producing enough farm yield, right? That was all kosher because the government sponsored the activity, yes?

 

[Falsedawn]

Sure sure. So no moral problems with your great great grand father wetting leather for not producing enough farm yield, right? That was all kosher because the government sponsored the activity, yes?

 

[Greoric]

Concession accepted. Thanks for playing, and bookmarked for later.

 

[faustian]

Correct, the founding document of our country. Had that founding document been written differently, then our rights would be different. And that's the whole point. The society we live in, from its inception, enshrined rights that it felt were out of the reach of a moral government. Those rights weren't ordained by any objective entity, they were defined by men of great philosophical insight.

That we have to define these things tells you exactly where they come from, the authority originally doing the definitions. This wasn't a scrying of some arcane knowledge. That we live in a society that we believe to be free means that they made good choices, but make no mistake that those choices were made and that they were not set in stone when they were being made. Locke said that we had a right to "life, liberty, and property" after all.

It's late, and I'm about to pass out so I'm having a hard time making sense of this. I'll just close by saying Georic was conflating a privilege with a right and gov grants privileges while it protects rights. The founding document was written based on the will of the people and a consensus philosophy of the nature of gov and and natural law. Even if it had been written differently, we'd still know in our heart of hearts that everyone is born with the right to liberty, there would just not be the same legal force behind the assertion. But it wasn't written differently, and so there's really no legal debate of where our rights derive from

 

[Falsedawn]

Concession accepted. Thanks for playing, and bookmarked for later.

Please feel free to quote this exchange. It will go a long way to illustrating how you go full retard and play illiterate when you're getting your shit pushed in.

 

[Greoric]

Please feel free to quote this exchange. It will go a long way to illustrating how you go full retard and play illiterate when you're getting your shit pushed in.

Amazing how your definition of getting shit my pushed in is, your avoidance of a direct question, and then ignoring the central point of my rebuttal. You're a smart dude, but you're still dumb enough not to recognize your intellectual superior when you're talking to them.

 

[Falsedawn]

Amazing how your definition of getting shit my pushed in is, your avoidance of a direct question, and then ignoring the central point of my rebuttal. You're a smart dude, but you're still dumb enough not to recognize your intellectual superior when you're talking to them.

See, this is where you start getting really silly with your arguments. As an American, influenced by the ideas of the enlightenment as realized through our founders, obviously I don't think slavery is moral.

Oh you sad, stupid, son of a bitch.

 

[Greoric]

Oh you sad, stupid, son of a bitch.

I'll give you points for trying, but it's still not shoring up for you is it?

 

[Falsedawn]

It's late, and I'm about to pass out so I'm having a hard time making sense of this. I'll just close by saying Georic was conflating a privilege with a right and gov grants privileges while it protects rights. The founding document was written based on the will of the people and a consensus philosophy of the nature of gov and and natural law. Even if it had been written differently, we'd still know in our heart of hearts that everyone is born with the right to liberty, there would just not be the same legal force behind the assertion. But it wasn't written differently, and so there's really no legal debate of where our rights derive from

You're thinking about this from a legal perspective. I'm talking about it from a sociological perspective. Where do our rights literally come from? And they come from the government, as laid out in whatever legal code the society as a whole subjects themselves to. That the legal code may attribute rights to some objective entity is all fine and dandy legally speaking. But that legal code had to be enumerated, and it wasn't done by objective entities. If the USA ceased to exist, the Constitution would no longer be the law of the land, and your rights amount to about as much as the force you can project. You can say they still exist in some abstract idyllic form, but that's not doing you much good if you can't back it up. Regardless of where you sit on the philosophical aspects of it, your rights come from the government and its ability to enforce the founding document as necessary.

 

[Greoric]

You can say they still exist in some abstract idyllic form, but that's not doing you much good if you can't back it up.

Here you go, and that fundamentally discounts that government grants you those rights. Its certainly true they are the arbiters as the reigning mob over a territory that get to recognize, and even codify them, but they exist independently of the reach of the state. Hence why you are very right in making a moral judgement about your ancestors being put under the whip, instead of being painted into a retard corner of relativism.

 

[ToxicShocker]

I think the big bad government touched greoric when he was little

 

[Greoric]

It's late, and I'm about to pass out so I'm having a hard time making sense of this. I'll just close by saying Georic was conflating a privilege with a right and gov grants privileges while it protects rights. The founding document was written based on the will of the people and a consensus philosophy of the nature of gov and and natural law. Even if it had been written differently, we'd still know in our heart of hearts that everyone is born with the right to liberty, there would just not be the same legal force behind the assertion. But it wasn't written differently, and so there's really no legal debate of where our rights derive from

I conflated nothing. You have the right to travel with your property without a permission slip hanging out for a compulsory funded monopoly to ID you and extort you as they see fit.

 

[Greoric]

I think the big bad government touched greoric when he was little

I got brain washed into almost fighting for a mass murder campaign... close enough. Read my posts more often and you might learn something about consistency of thought.

 

[Falsedawn]

Then slavery prior to 1860 was morally acceptable?

obviously I don't think slavery is moral.

In any event, back on topic, I suppose you concede that the white man whipping your ancestors for not picking the cotton fast enough was, A-OK yes?

obviously I don't think slavery is moral.

Sure sure. So no moral problems with your great great grand father wetting leather for not producing enough farm yield, right? That was all kosher because the government sponsored the activity, yes?

obviously I don't think slavery is moral.

your avoidance of a direct question

 

[Greoric]

That's one way of going one 180 on your position and trying to save face I suppose.

 

[method115]

Yeah I guess we fundamentally disagree that govt is the one that decides what your rights are, that we have to register what we're driving with the government, and be extorted if we don't.

If people didn't register their vehicle and say you hit someone's car and took off and all they got was your license plate. How would the police find you? Serious question I always assumed it was because of us registering vehicles. If there is another way then yea fuck registering vehicles. If not then yea people need to fucking register their vehicles. To many people here in Texas drive around without insurance and try to hit and run.

 

[Andy Capp]

I conflated nothing. You have the right to travel with your property without a permission slip hanging out for a compulsory funded monopoly to ID you and extort you as they see fit.

Do you have the right to drive an unsafe vehicle that may endanger others, particularly an uninsured one so that you won't even be able to pay up if you cause damage?