Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
once upon a crime

ANOTHER ROUGH WEEK FOR AMERICAN LIBERALISM/SOCIALISM

Recommended Posts

Yea that is all good in theory, as is much of the stuff discussed in Crossfire however in the practical realities of the world we live in it doesn't work that way, people are not born equal, they are not born with the same rights, some countries people do not have the right to free speech, they do not have the right to education.

 

The laws of nature do not govern the way we live, the rule of law in the country we are from does.

 

 

Don't you see what I'm saying? We're all born with those rights no matter where we are born.

Whether we fight to take them from men who would have us believe that they are our rulers is another thing.

 

Remember why those Brits left and came to the new land? Remember why the first Americans fought the king?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

Yea I do understand what you are saying, but what I am saying is that in an ideal world what you are saying is completely right, OK in lots of western countries like the ones we are priviledged to live in then yea we have those rights, try comparing that to people suffering genocide in places like Rwanda, the caste system in india, they dont have a voice and if they stood up for these natural rights they are slaughtered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think you are confusing a few things.

 

just because all people are born with natural rights doesnt mean that governments or other people arent taking them away.

 

we are talking about negative rights... freedom of speech, religion, basically the ability to do anything you want to do as long as you dont mess with anyone elses life or property.

 

positive rights like free healthcare and free education are not 'rights' they are simply privileges or wealth redistribution. not rights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea but that is not applicable in the world we live in, it is that simple. You are talking about an ideological viewpoint that doesn't have any real bearing in the real world we live in. People are downtrodden and abused all around the world from the second they are born, you try telling them they have these rights and they will laugh in your face.

 

I only think of how things are in the real world, it is like my view point on guns, I know it has no bearing in real life because there is nothing that can be done about them so nothing will happen, I could take that you have the right to bear arms to mean you have the right to defend yourself, it has nothing to do with your rights to own a gun, therefore guns can be illegal. (not that I want to get in the gun debate arena again lol I have retired from that because it is my ideological view and will not make a damn difference in the real world)

 

All of these rights we discuss so freely because we live in western countries are not so applicable around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decyferon-

 

true, but that is not our as western country residents fault(not that you were implying it is), its just legitimately, EVERYONE (meaning every human being) in the world is born with the natural law rights, whether its rwanda or canada. But you are right when you say those rights are taken away from them by others in their country after birth. America is differant because we said 'eff that' and took the risk of dying by revolting against the king of England.

 

People in other countries have no right to complain if they do not have the same rights we have, because they have not been smart enough to organize and take the risk of dying and "re-earning" those rights from the people in power in their countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

people keep referring back to the American revolution and I am sorry yea it worked for you that long ago but America is one of the countries I refer to when I say people are not equal. While someone may be born with these natural rights in truth they are born into poverty/ghettos with no way out. They are born into circumstances that, in the vast majority of people dictate the way they live their life, a baby is born to a junkie mother has a natural right to exist drug free however from the moment he/she is born they are in withdrawl.

 

If the American revolution took place in todays society I dont think it would have panned out as it did back then. Modern society has moved on, so while I agree in theory with the statement that everyone is born equal, I am a realist and know that is not how it works in practise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think everyone is arguing semantics or something

there is a difference in rights and living situations or circumstances. rights cannot be blamed for oppressive leaders or living conditions one is born into.

 

i think a good study of negative rights is in order to under stand the natural rights theory correctly.

after natural rights are understood...

read this:

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard31.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I am saying aod is that while there may be natural rights in theory there isn't in practise as evidenced around the globe, it isn't as simple as natural rights when so many variables are in place, there are no black and White just varying shades of grey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^yeah, I tried tellin em that. Polarized black/white, yes/no, right/wrong viewpoints are very stubborn and self-righteous.

 

I think the most interesting thing going on in this thread involves psychological disposition rather than actual "issues" and political alignments, but I don't feel totally qualified to speak on that.

CIMG5420.jpg.262aee322393a41e4dd73187fd545396.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

decy:

 

you still dont understand. natural rights ARE NOT LIVING CONDITIONS. we are talking about negative natural rights. not living conditions, where someone is born, how governments are infringing on natural rights, or any of that.

 

just the fact that everyone is endowed by their creator with inalienable rights among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

once you understand what exactly natural rights are... then read the murray rothbard article i linked.

 

for instance... another natural right people have is to throw off a government that is infringing on their rights. it doesnt mean it will be possible, easy or work out in the end, just that one can do it legitimately. you have a natural right to self defense. it doesnt mean that you wont get killed or injured trying to defend yourself, just that you have a right to defend yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No aod I understand I really do, what I am saying is that in a real world situation natural rights aren't as simple as you guys are making out, yes you have the right to pursue happiness there are too many other factors involved. Like I said I do agree in theory just not in practise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i feel what decy is saying---if my mom is a crackhead and im born addicted to crack, i have no right to choose to be addicted or not when i come out of the womb. However the reality is that i am physically addicted to crack cocaine.

 

same concept applied elsewhere---im born into a culture of castes. its my natural right to be the elite class if i choose, but my culture does not allot me that choice, and i dont know anything about other cultures, so im stuck with no right to be the elite.

its up to those in a country like that to choose to make it differant for their kids and the future generations of that country. If they dont care and dont want to begin changing that, then shut up and live in the untouchable class like your only living natural right says you have to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but the Constitution is only talking about being equal in front of the law.

 

It has no more baring other than that.

 

Decy, from all of your responses, I don't think you understand. You keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with how men/women are viewed in front of the law. How much money you are born into, how healthy you are. The education you could potential receive, or the possible health care you could have available to you have absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

 

Life isn't fair, the libertarian ideology takes this into account from the jump. Creating a Utopia is not possible. At least not at this point in our civilization. So....trying to create one where everyone has an equal standing in every aspect of life is pretty silly, not to mention impossible. The American government can't do it, neither can any other government on the face of this planet.

 

Also jumping at AOD for responding to your question by calling him "obsessive" is pretty ass backwards. He was only clarifying the situation, and breaking down his response and covered all of the bases.

 

Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah but the Constitution is only talking about being equal in front of the law.

 

It has no more baring other than that.

 

Decy, from all of your responses, I don't think you understand. You keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with how men/women are viewed in front of the law. How much money you are born into, how healthy you are. The education you could potential receive, or the possible health care you could have available to you have absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

 

Life isn't fair, the libertarian ideology takes this into account from the jump. Creating a Utopia is not possible. At least not at this point in our civilization. So....trying to create one where everyone has an equal standing in every aspect of life is pretty silly, not to mention impossible. The American government can't do it, neither can any other government on the face of this planet.

 

Also jumping at AOD for responding to your question by calling him "obsessive" is pretty ass backwards. He was only clarifying the situation, and breaking down his response and covered all of the bases.

 

Sheesh.

 

I never called AOD obsessive, me and him are always very civil toward each other.

 

You say I bring things up that have nothing to do with how men/women are viewed in front of the law, I disagree, I am definitely bringing up issues people are NOT treated equally in the eyes of the law, while a law may not particularly say that someone doesn't have an equal standing, we all know that the justice system doesn't treat people equally.

 

Also, your social situation DOES affect how you are percieved in the eyes of the law, Rich people can and have literally gotten away with murder, and like i said about the caste system in India, the people are NOT born equal.

 

Yes as I have said before I do agree that all men are born with these natural rights, but it just isn't that simple in the world we live in, there is no point discussing an idea like natural rights without taking into consideration the reality of the world we all live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decferon<QUOTE>Also, your social situation DOES affect how you are percieved in the eyes of the law, Rich people can and have literally gotten away with murder, and like i said about the caste system in India, the people are NOT born equal.

 

That is true. Boys-N-tha-Hood is a good example--a person who wants to do right and has done no wrong is automatically shaken down by the law because they were born and raised in Compton or wherever, so it assumed they just robbed somone or have crack under theyre tongue.

 

Same with the rich however--if a respectable millionaire is found in Compton there would be no way the law would think theyre up to no good; actually prolly offer to give them a lift home in the squad car. Or, they could have just been caught pulling the trigger, but money solves most things like that.

"Yes, i just shot that man. Heres 7 million dollars to keep it to yourself, Officer Romero."

"..uhhmm..uh, yeah. Looks like a random mugging to me. Need a ride away from the scene, Mr. Millionaire?"

 

bet that ish goes down alot. paying off judges, jury, police, etc. Poor people cant do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

however it is not binding. ANYone, no matter their circumstances, can do what they have to do to better their position in life. Most just do not want to do what it takes and the time to do so. It may mean you start so primitively as to learn about human communication, then use that to gain alot of friends/connections, then work your way into a position of influence, then a position of power, and by that point, you are definately in a better position then you started. a risk most are not willing to take, and make excuses like 'impossibility' or 'theres not enough time to do al of that'

 

alot of it is obviously who you know, not what you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if all men are created equal and under the CONSTITUTION it states this, why are a load of fuckwad retard senators debating if gays and lesbians should be in the army? (don't ask, don't tell) seems that you can now pick and choose what parts of the constitution you like.

 

Surely just by debating such an issue and creating a divide between people based on their sexuality they are commiting a breach of the constitution and isn't that illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so if all men are created equal and under the CONSTITUTION it states this, why are a load of fuckwad retard senators debating if gays and lesbians should be in the army? (don't ask, don't tell) seems that you can now pick and choose what parts of the constitution you like.

 

Surely just by debating such an issue and creating a divide between people based on their sexuality they are commiting a breach of the constitution and isn't that illegal?

 

regardless of the actual issue of gays in the military (you could just as easily make the case that they are discriminating against people who cant pass a PT test, people that are overweight or to old, people that are under 18, etc)....

 

the government has stopped following the constitution a LONG time ago. they dont even pretend to keep their oath of office anymore, they just laugh at you when someone asks if something is constitutional. like pelosi did when someone asked her if the health plan was constitutional.

 

which brings us to the point. if the government actually followed the contract that created the government, and people stopped allowing the government to engage in extra or unconstitutional activity, the rule of law as laid out by the constitution would still reign supreme. however all it takes is just one little thing... say 'its a good idea if we institute a national social security program' and the validity of the rule of law of the constitution is now null and void. because if one group can break it for their project, then another can break it for theirs. for instance, conversationally speaking, the left wants to break the constitution to have health care, and the right wants to break it to have a war.

 

(this is negating the fact that most of the mainstream left and right both favor some sort of healthcare managed or run by the government and both recognize that congress doesnt have to declare war at all anymore)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is something that I don't understand, where in the constitution does it state that you cannot have universal healthcare? It is something that will benefit Americans and I don't understand why there is so much hate towards it (apart from the people that think taxes are wrong, but without them you wouldn't be the country you are)

 

Obviously I don't know the constitution like you guys because it isn't actually immportant or relevant to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the constitution was written with enumerated powers. it lays out specifically what the government can and cannot do. the 10 th amendment then says that any powers not delegated to the federal governmetn are left to the states or to the people.

so the federal government has no jurisdiction to enact national healthcare. the states could if they wanted to. that is up to each state.

 

legally and constitutionally a constitutional amendment would have to be passed to give congress authorization to engage in healthcare.

like they did with the income tax and alcohol prohibition and its repeal. good laws or not, atleast they passed they passed an amendment like they were supposed to.

 

its no different than if you sign a home owners association contract that ONLY says.... 'the hoa can legislate what colors your house can be painted. ' then next year they start telling what you can buy at the grocery store and what foods you can store in your house and how they have to be prepared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is something that is benficial to the vast majority of Americans, this is why I don't understand why people ar so against it. It is better to have a government run healthcare system run from taxes that are about providing a service and having no exclusions to the cover you have in comparison to a private healthcare system that's main agenda is profit and refusing cover for pre-existing conditions etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it is something that is benficial to the vast majority of Americans, this is why I don't understand why people ar so against it. It is better to have a government run healthcare system run from taxes that are about providing a service and having no exclusions to the cover you have in comparison to a private healthcare system that's main agenda is profit and refusing cover for pre-existing conditions etc.

 

see, you are confusing emotions with constitutionality.

if you enact something you like that is unconstitutional you have no right to bitch and moan when someone passes something you dont like that is unconstitutional.

 

look at the divisive nature of this topic. you have very strong supporters and very strong opponents. why have a big ass battle over it to the death and force whatever outcome there is on 300 million people? why not just let the debate take place in the states? they are smaller and more than likely people will have a better chance of getting what they want. like minded people flock to certain parts of the country. this constitutional solution solves everything and takes away all the fighting among people. just let them live their lives how they want to on the local level instead of the national level.

 

if a national initiative is to take place with healthcare, legitimately a constitutional amendment needs to pass. this will never happen. easiest just to follow the constitution and let each state debate the issue themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do t belive that individual states would have the funding available to provide the healthcare. I am glad we don't live by the constitution here, while there are things I agree with within it I wouldn't want someone that was voted into power by the people in today's society having his hands tied by an ancient document that is not fully relevant in today's world. It seems to halt the progress of change rather than facilitate it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...