The Origin of the Idea of Natural Rights

You are conflating something - but get to that later. First is that Classical liberalism has both inherent rights "essential liberty" which you have yet to have demonstrated to understand .. and consent of the governed - the two main principles in the Declaration of independence.

As I stated .. you were talking about Totalitarianism - and outside the scope- and somewhat absurd . Is dictatorship the most efficient form of Gov't .. 100% - and we are getting our backsides handed to us .. but do I trade for totalitarianism .. the collective hive mind of the borg

I don't think so. and I think you are a bridge too far in blaming it all on "consent of the Governed' rather than Crony Capitalism. Other nations which are not totalitarianism are doing a far better job at competing with China then the USA ..

 

You have already defined "essential liberty" in terms of individual freedoms which do not encroach on the essential freedoms/rights of other individuals. What am I missing?

ie, the "right" to liberty is an essential liberty for individuals ...check. OTOH, you have yet to demonstrate an understanding that all individuals have a right to liberty, a right which is denied if some are living in systemic poverty.

Yet the Chinese themselves are increasingly supportive of their results-oriented government, while young people in the West no longer think democracy is the best form of government.

Alex Oliver "Are Australians Disenchanted with Democracy?" – Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au)

"Even more challenging was the response of the younger age group—the
18 to 29-year-olds. Only 39 per cent of that them felt that democracy was the most preferable form of government. More than half either didn’t care, or thought a non-democratic system might work better in some circumstances."

Not surprising really, given the disastrous consequences of the gig economy on the lives of the young, amid rising asset prices for already well-off "baby boomers".

Yet no other nation has the US Constitutional commitment to "natural inalienable individual rights"........

You still have to show where I am conflating "something" and what that "something" is.

 

you do that too, however you really need to stop indiscriminately bouncing between treading through your ideological philosophies and peripheral paraphernalia at the same time, often in the same sentence. How we as a world operate in reality and the philosophical ideals are never going to match, so why not get a little more focused and pick one or the other instead of commingling into vegetable soup mass confusion.

for instance the philosophical right to liberty and the individuals right to liberty and denial and systemic property have no direct connection and you are tying them all together as if they do.

 

The philosophical right to liberty is different to the individual's right to liberty? How so? And both concepts of rights have no direct relationship to the right to freedom from fear and want?

The dark history of politics tells us otherwise...

Sorry if your version of "right" to liberty has political and economic consequences, but that's just the natural outcome of all constitutions which raise self-interest over community well-being, on the basis of the delusion of individual sovereignty - whether via Classical Liberalism with its 'inalienable natural rights' delusion, or Libertarianism with its delusion of voluntary agreement among self-interested individuals, as I pointed out in a previous post).

 

so what is liberty to you? you started with natural rights, now it seems like you have substituted liberty? Thats fine but when substitute liberty then we need to start with what you think that is. you simply cant claim that each apple in a basket of apples is no longer an apple because they are 'incorporated' into a basket, so you need to come up with a better as in more convincing argument for sovereignty. That and your conclusions to the premises are nonsequitur

 

BW is conflating essential liberty with "ALL" economic consequences. Now - that said - if we are talking an Orwellian Totalitarian Borg Collective - the economic consequences are magnified - and this is what BW is arguing for .. and unabashedly so.

So then .. hand in hand - shall we take the plunge ... Orwellian wonderland here we come ?! !?

 

Talon, a good book we all need to read (I own the book and argued with the author enough to know the contents of his book) called there is no Government like no Government.



I know the name of the actual author and he presents a brilliant book.

 

Who is the owner of what you believe are your personal rights?

Like when abortionists argue for women's rights? Prior to women having such rights, who possesses those rights?

 

Id argue conflation with any consequences and the consequences argued by BW are for the most part nonsequitur

Thats exactly the problem,

they dont abide by the rule of law now, and never have, so what possible logic exists that can convince us that simply making it bigger and giving it unlimited power is going to magically fix that problem?

We are already there! Had that for nearly 200 years already, today we feed it steroids in increasingly larger doses.

me

they argue because state medical agencies refuse to service them, and ALL medical agencies are a product of the auspices of state in the US, with state guidelines that we the people have no part in its creation except through the courts.

 

You are arguing against the state.

 

in the case of abortion of course

 

BW is arguing the trash -bin for the Rule of Law - Full on dictatorship.

Don't know about 200 years . but ramping up big time over the last few decades -since they finally made it our "Patriotic Duty" to give up Liberty after 911.

 

What is tyranny? Is an orderly society where we have individual rights to pursue the freedom of religion, thought and speech tyranny? Or, is anarchy that destroys these individual rights endowed by our creator tyranny? If one group feels oppressed because of religious doctrine, does that give the oppressed the right to inflict oppression upon the religious? - https://baptistnews.com/article/25-...ination-case-against-department-of-education/
In my opinion, this is tyranny when LGTBQ organizations attempt to oppress the religious bodies through their believed entitlements. 25 colleges out of approximately 5,300 colleges and universities in the U.S. are singled out and oppressed by this group. That's tyranny of the minority.

 

Is not the 51% democracy imposing rules on the 49% minority tyranny of the minority?

well at least 51,49 in parliament, we never et to vote on any law we are required to live under.

anarchy has neither the power nor authority to accomplish that

 

Oh yeh and covid is no different, using their corporations as proxies to violate our rights as courts have ruled.

keeps coming up with new ways to restate the same issues

 

It's happening in the U.S. right now. It's happened in England already. We are losing our 1st amendment rights of religion. There is no rights of non-religion that is endowed by our creator. That is being forced upon us by the secular atheist government.

 

ANYTHING da guv decides they want to make against the law, they simply pick a euphemism give it the same meaning as what your religion practices, and prosecute you under the new word. polygamy now bigamy under da law used to OVERWRITE your religion.

That is how they have written all our law. Its fraud.

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (187, was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment.[1]

George Reynolds was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), charged with bigamy under the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act after marrying Amelia Jane Schofield while still married to Mary Ann Tuddenham in Utah Territory. He was secretary to Brigham Young and presented himself as a test of the federal government's attempt to outlaw polygamy.

The LDS Church, believing that the law unconstitutionally deprived its members of their First Amendment right to freely practice their religion, chose to challenge the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States


The deck is stacked against you unless you know the game. they charge you with the word 'bigamy' so you can go to court and argue polygamy until you turn green, its the way the courts function.

Its flat out fraud but welcome to the land of the 'free'

I got news for you, there never has been religious freedom in this country, there has only been da guvs way or da highway. you go down

ALL attorneys know this, its a magicians trick, sleight of hand, few people understand how they do it and they literally overwrote everyones religion into public law using this method. They arent prosecuting you under a religious term they are prosecuting you under a secular term therefore presto shazamo your religious rights now hijacked into secular law.

Pure fraud designed to undermine the constitution in the land of the free.

 

Are you replying to me (a BW)?

I already explained all individuals in all species are "free" in nature (ie, "born free".....).

That is what liberty .... as in being born "free".... means to me.

That is the full extent of my acknowledgement of "natural liberty". I have been rejecting the concept of natural "rights" all along (unlike Pisa who first rejected the concept and then changed her mind....)

So since both of us now know we are all born free, we now have to face the problem of freedom in the aggregate;
ie, while each apple in the basket IS still an apple, the fact of them being in the basket, and no longer alone, changes their "sovereignty" ie, according to which of them is placed at the top in the basket. (Thanks for the analogy enabling me to shine further light on the concept of 'individual sovereignty', which I term delusional).

Hence my conclusions for "freedom" in the aggregate; we all find ourselves operating in particular economic systems in which individual freedoms are constrained by the particular system (the "bucket"), and while some individuals - left to their own devices - are able to succeed in the system, others do not prosper - on account of the differing abilities required to succeed in our complex technological human economies.

 

So...you are now debating my propositions through K; ok, I deal with the sovereignty issue in post #418.

Well, I'm for an empirical approach, considering the massive risk/reward equation.

"Workers of the world unite".....

We shall soon see (in the next decade) whether the benefits of a one-party meritocracy, directed by a Marxist "vision" - ie, not by oppression (if we accept the Marxist spirit) but by implementation of above-poverty participation for all in the economy, including reward for special talent and effort - are superior to "invisible hand", 'free' markets in adversarial, two-party, "democracies" with chronic entrenched disadvantage.

And as for sovereignty in the international sphere: 50 kids in Gaza are no longer with us, their lives destroyed in entirely preventable conflict.....they paid the ultimate price for your "liberty", indeed....

 

We agree on many things

1) China has shown the world how efficient totalitarianism can be - and this scares me - as China is NOT my ideal. Not saying that China is a horrible place to be at this moment in time .. fusing capitalism into the mix was a brilliant move by Jiang - really liked that President - and he has an interesting story .. this guy now is hard line .. and that is the problem - you get some nut in there and he can do what ever - no limits ..

bear in mind that I am one of the very few who is even going to entertain hearing the word "Totalitarianism"

2) We agree that the current system is not working - not sure if you understand the environmental part of the equation - but this has become a driving factor in policy "meaning my Policy" as current Policy is really bad in this respect.

Extreme Capitalism and Communism meet at the far end of the spectrum - in both cases you have a few elite controlling most resources and means of production. .. and we are there. World Wealth is around 4-500 Trillion.. I can show you 3 bank accounts with 110 Trillion.

Wealth inequality is increasing - increasing civil unrest in a drastically overpopulated world.

Where we disagree is that this all is the fault of "essential liberty" - we can claim a contributing factor I suppose - but is this situation worse than China .. think the answer is that it is a toss up ... so on that basis - I will take the side with liberty.

My argument is that we can do much better under "Liberty" than we are doing .. and perhaps I am an optimist - as it is an unclear position .. many arguments on both sides .. especially given the dire situation we face.

So far China has been a filthy pig .. but, they are moving to get better .. Could we pin our hopes at saving the planet going full on totalitarianism .. perhaps .. but What's the point of robbery when nothing is worth taking.

One thing I will say is that Crisis such the environment and Pandemics will move the needle towards authoritarianism - Pandemics which will become more dangerous as global population continues to increase and the environment further degrades. Think of it this way "Aerobic" - Good "Anearobic" - Bad - and we are turning the Oceans into a "Dead Zone" at an ever increasing rate .. one patch they found was the size of New Jersey . and there are hundreds of these zones.. the more we consume - the more sewage and fertilizer run-off into the toilet .. sorry .. the Ocean.

In a bit of an Orwellian twist - Biden's enviro policy is to increase Ocean Pollution .. despite the NGD stating "thou shalt not transport our pollution problems to other (non-industrialized) nations" and Red has no plan of Merit .. and in fact Few if any nations that I know have put forth any plan of merit .. meaning one that addresses the main root cause issues 1) Industrialization 2) Population Growth

The current approach has been "Not in my Back Yard - Dump it in the Ocean instead" .

 

And, it is getting worse.

 

A toss up? And you hate the "totalitarian" Chinese system... even though the relative benefits of the two systems are as you say a "toss-up" ie not at all clear?

Meanwhile I think Chinese Marxism might be a better system, because I don't see a sound, rational basis for your individual "essential liberty" - which in my estimation is only a reflection of a desire to be free, rather than a reality existing in nature.

Why?

Because nature is based on a food chain exhibiting interaction between "free" predators and "free" prey. This is your "essential liberty" of individuals in action.

You want to limit "essential liberty" to that amount of liberty which is consistent with no harm to others.

OK. But can you identify how the CPC limits "essential liberty" so defined?

Eg, I recall a Chinese woman interviewed by Western media during the Biden -Trump election campaign, saying her husband is interested in politics but she is more interested in running her shop and she didn't care about politics.

How is the CPC limiting her "essential liberty"?

OTOH, the "essential liberty" to believe (for example) whites are the superior race MAY have devastating consequences if enough individuals reinforce one-another in that belief, and one of them decides to act on it (as happened in the UK today, resulting in the shooting of a BLM activist)

 

I don't believe in objective personal rights.

 

No, liberty is the political acknowledgement of our natural rights.

at best that is a euphemism to natural rights expressed in public

Being free is a consequence of being born, liberty is built on that freedom, and here in the US not to be infringed upon at least its given lip service.

That is liberty.

my natural rights end at the tip of your nose