Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 53 of 53

Thread: What are our actual rights?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor
    Where I'm not with you, is on the idea that this is all irrefutable.
    Is it? I am not convinced. As a matter of inherency to human flesh, perhaps... Or not. As a matter of human spirit, for lack of a better word, less certain of refutability. As a question of human relations, I am doubtful of refutability. I'm still trapped in NJ, typing on a phone... My notion of damnation's torment. We should have this discussion because it is important to see why such rights as matters of relations between men do in fact exist as fundamental elements of those relationships, arising negatively out of the innate equality of authority, man to man. Don't think I can do on this phone, as I am considering suicide because of even this tiny bit of typing. I believe I now know why millennials are typically so bottomlessly stoopid: anyone with intelligence worth the mention would self-destruct within minutes of taking up a cell phone for net.purposes. This is impossibly painful.

    It's totally refutable
    Maybe. Let us discuss this further when I can find a device.

    I can refute it on the same basis that I refute Sola Scriptura: it was never man's understanding until a few people pushed the idea and it caught on.

    This is a VERY weak attack. By analogy, we might say that gravity did not exist prior to men possessing the concept of gravity.

    Many people once believed the world was flat. Did belief or other falsity of knowledge make the world flat in this sense? No.

    In the case of Sola Scriptura, it's an idea that mankind pulled out of thin air after 1500 years of relevant recorded history: in the case of natural rights, it's similarly pulled out of thin air, but after... all of recorded history across all continents, up to the 17th century.
    Discovery does NOT equate with invention.

    Men did NOT, for example, invent the relationships that lead to the formulation of Euclidean theorems of geometry. Those relationships existed perhaps since the purported big bang. They discovered them and subsequently theorized about them, eventually proving them in accord with the formal system we call logic.

    How can we say men have natural rights, when men didn't even have a concept for them for about five millennia?
    See clarification, above.

    Mind you this is mainly playing Devil's Advocate... but the natural rights concept is a large plot point in the same fairy tale that includes the DoI, the Constitution, and the United States, and I stopped believing in that fantasy a long time ago.
    Dööd, Iám surprised at you... this sounds as if you feel defeated. Do not choose defeat. So long as you refuse that choice, you cannot be defeated, even if your adversary kills or chains you. Defeat rests nowhere but in the mind.

    The relevant demonstration of rights rests in the nature of men's relationships to one another. The solo man is God and may do as he wishes because there is nobody to thwart him.

    Therefore, the context of his relation to his fellows is what counts on this matter of "rights".

    To begin, I offer you what I have come to call the "Cardinal Postulate", which says
    All men are equally endowed with life

    Do you accept this assertion as truth? Life is fact. Questions of whence it issues as such are irrelevant to the fact and to the discussion at hand.
    Last edited by osan; 05-04-2016 at 05:16 PM.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Ha. Cardinal Postulate. I could have sworn we had a topic on this a few years back or so. Good thread if I recall.


    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    To begin, I offer you what I have come to call the "Cardinal Postulate", which says


    All men are equally endowed with life
    Please explain why you've moved around the specific language in the Declaration of Independence that states that...

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

    Certainly you have a reason for this. Right? You must or you woudn't have done so. I'd like to better understand the nature of your model. More specifically, your intentions. Of course, I may have different questions than fisharmor.

    Please educate me, too, please. I like to learn. Carpe Diem!

    Thanks, osan.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-04-2016 at 07:01 PM.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Michael View Post
    Ha. Cardinal Postulate. I could have sworn we had a topic on this a few years back or so. Good thread if I recall.
    Same thing.

    Please explain why you've moved around the specific language in the Declaration of Independence that states that...



    Certainly you have a reason for this. Right? You must or you woudn't have done so. I'd like to better understand the nature of your model. More specifically, your intentions. Of course, I may have different questions than fisharmor.

    Please educate me, too, please. I like to learn. Carpe Diem!

    Thanks, osan.
    My choice of wording has nothing to do with DoI, which refers to a creator, a possible irrelevancy. I stick with fact. We are, by some means, endowed with life, and by that mechanism are we eqally gifted.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Same thing.
    Is it? How so? And based on what model for comparison? Who decides them as equally such upon any said comparison? And by what authority is the decider granted the status of actually being the decider? Alternatively, what would make them different?

    My choice of wording has nothing to do with DoI, which refers to a creator...
    I respectfully disagree that it has nothing to do with it. That's why I asked you why you chose to say it that way.

    As I said, I'd like to better understand your intention. As it is, it was, in fact, a choice to do that and you've again avoided my question by way of offering mere proclamation. I'm challenging your proclamation that it has nothing to do with it. Perhaps, as well, your intention. I've not yet decided the latter. Again, though, I like to learn, too. We're all friends here. At least I like to think so anyway.

    ....a possible irrelevancy.
    How so? Irrelevant in what way? And why possibly irrelevant as opposed to definitely irrelevant? What are the confounding factors? Specifically, please. Perhaps our group would like to know what those are so that we may check them and separate any variables together.

    I stick with fact.
    Me, too. I try to anyway. I do the best I can within my capacity. Of course, I don't claim to have all of the answers. Which is why I ask questions. Where do you get your facts? What makes them fact? Aside from that, what makes your view that they are indeed factual any less questionable than any other?

    We are, by some means, endowed with life, and by that mechanism are we eqally gifted
    When you say "by some means", can you be more specific, please? By what means? You said you only deal with facts. So, then, I'm asking you to provide what you view as a factual means. Specifically.

    I disagree that we are equally gifted, though. Some people are just better at things than others. This is the very reason we see institutionalized equality.

    I agree, though, that we are created equally.

    Of course, I've read more links in my lifetime than one may shake a stick at. So, then, the words of osan will suffice in response here.

    Thanks, osan.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-04-2016 at 09:27 PM.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Michael View Post
    Is it? How so?
    Because I know my own intention.




    I respectfully disagree that it has nothing to do with it. That's why I asked you why you chose to say it that way.
    You presume to know my motives better than I? Interesting.

    As I said, I'd like to better understand your intention. As it is, it was, in fact, a choice to do that and you've again avoided my question by way of offering mere proclamation
    .

    How is my "proclamation" mere when it refers to my own intentions? This makes no sense, unless you mean to imply I am lying or being deceitful.


    How so? Irrelevant in what way? And why possibly irrelevant as opposed to definitely irrelevant? What are the confounding factors? Specifically, please. Perhaps our group would like to know what those are so that we may check them and separate any variables together.
    Life is fact. How we come tohave it has no apparent bearing to the discussion. Because I am not 100% certain it has no bearing, I qualified the assertion.

    Icannot be more specific becaue I have not the faintest idea whence life issues.

    I disagree that we are equally gifted, though. Some people are just better at things than others. This is the very reason we see institutionalized equality.

    I agree, though, that we are created equally.
    You did not read carefully. I wrote we are gifted equally with life, not talent. The two are very different.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  8. #36
    Rights are "created". If you take this to corporate law you will see that the "created" (corporation) is "subject" to it's "creator" (man). These are "legal fictions" (in that they are not real but imagined in the minds of their creators).

    This said, you have to believe in a "creator" in order to believe in "rights". If I create a sand castle, it is ultimately subject to my will. That sand castle can never claim to have dominion over me, it's creator. You can believe that we are created by the flying spaghetti monster if you like but only your creator can grant you life and rights. If you believe that the cosmos created you in a huge un-explainable big bang then your "rights" come from the big bang (can't see it myself).

    That which is created is "subject" to it's creator. It is unnatural for the created to try to usurp power over it's creator (as our goonerment is trying to do to people).
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Because I know my own intention.




    You presume to know my motives better than I? Interesting.

    .

    How is my "proclamation" mere when it refers to my own intentions? This makes no sense, unless you mean to imply I am lying or being deceitful.




    Life is fact. How we come tohave it has no apparent bearing to the discussion. Because I am not 100% certain it has no bearing, I qualified the assertion.

    Icannot be more specific becaue I have not the faintest idea whence life issues.

    Well. That just won't do, osan. You've omitted a good bit of my response to you. Some rather important questions that are necessary to answer given they are relative to better understanding what seems to be your final position on the matter. It's okay. It's early anyway. And I haven't even had coffee yet.


    You did not read carefully. I wrote we are gifted equally with life, not talent. The two are very different.
    Yes, I did. Cardinal Postulate. Right? And your intention. Which you haven't yet shared other than to say that your intention is yours. I asked you specific questions with regard to how and why you are of the position that it is the same thing as that which you spoke around in your initial communication to fisharmor. Your response here to those questions is only that you know your intention.

    And I didn't claim to know your intention. So, not really interesting at all unless you're projecting another theory of sort. That's why I asked you what I did in the first place. I don't need you to tell me what your intention is. I can figure it out on my own if you'd have not omitted my questions here and discussed them a bit. Of course, I don't expect you to cater to me. They were just questions is all.

    I'm not really debating you, osan. I'm just trying to better understand you is all. Mainly to decide whether I want to waste my time helping you should the need arise. To see if we share the same intention. To see if you are or aren't a stubborn hard head who won't listen to other people once in a while. Attitude is important. I mean, it's really important. We'd all do well to maintain the right temperament for the trade. Right? I'm generally speaking, of course. And, again. I like to learn. It's one of my favorite things to do.

    Anyway. I'll chat with you later. If you do think about what I'd asked in my previous communication and care to dive into it, it'd make for interesting discussion. I won't follow up with anything here in this particular post since the omissions have basically resteered us back to where we were in the first place. Enjoy your morning.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-05-2016 at 08:48 AM.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianAnarchist View Post
    Rights are "created".
    This is a very tricky statement, semantically speaking, predicating on the precise meanings of "rights" and "created".

    Firstly there are at least two senses of "right" that might apply but which you did not specify. There is the notion of an inherent right, which is the relevant sense here. There is also the idea of a contractual right, which is strictly synthetic. Your statement certainly applies to contractual rigbts, but not necessarily to those that are inherent.

    If we return to the example of geometric forms, we can see the relationships of, say, the elements of an equilateral triangle. Three sides of equal length are inherent, as are three equal vertex angles. These characteristics arise as matters of the triangle's natural structure. These characteristics are not "created" in the sense you seem to employ. They are created when one creates the triangle, but cannot choose not to include them because they are inherent features of triangles.

    In a strongly analogous manner, it may be said that rights are inherent to the nature of the relationships between men. Put two men on a desert island and the relationship simply arises, replete with each man's concommitant rights. If I draw a triangle, certain relationships are always present. If I parachute two people onto that empty place, relationships similarly arise.

    If you take this to corporate law you will see that the "created" (corporation) is "subject" to it's "creator" (man). These are "legal fictions" (in that they are not real but imagined in the minds of their creators).
    We are speaking humans and their relationships to one another, not legal fictions.

    This said, you have to believe in a "creator" in order to believe in "rights".
    Nosir. An atheist can derive the naturally inherent basis for human rights as readily as anyone else.

    If I create a sand castle, it is ultimately subject to my will.
    If I create a self-sufficient hunter-killer robot equal in intelligence to any human, it is not inconceivable that it might get away from me, no longer subject to my will, but possibly imposing its upon me.

    If you believe that the cosmos created you inq a huge un-explainable big bang then your "rights" come from the big bang (can't see it myself).
    Not necessarily. Unintended relationships and other characteristics do arise in the process of designing things. In fact, it happens all the time and the more subtle/complex the creation, the more likely unexpected "features" come into existence on its coat tails, so to speak.

    It is unnatural for the created to try to usurp power over it's creator (as our goonerment is trying to do to people).
    [/QUOTE]

    Au contraire, mon ami. I think it is precisely the nature of living things to do just that. Children test limits with parents daily. Pets, those of their "owners"; governments as you note, and so on down a very long list.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  11. #39
    Are there "God given" rights- or are rights created and demanded by humans? What rights are listed in the Bible? It lists rights you don't have such as the Ten Commandments.

  12. #40
    1. Right of might
    2. Right of contract

    That is it.
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    xxxxx
    Last edited by Voluntarist; 07-25-2018 at 02:49 PM.
    You have the right to remain silent. Anything you post to the internet can and will be used to humiliate you.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    List our actual rights.

    What are we really "entitled" to?

    Dr. Paul routinely mentioned some of them: our right to be safe in our person, our property; our right to the fruits of our labor.

    What else?
    I think the only way to boil it down is "all persons are created equal, and have equal sovereignty unto themselves." While our actual rights may be distilled down to an essence of "personal sovereignty," this is not a list of rights, but a PRINCIPLE to apply in a situation to determine if you or someone is acting by right or by wrong.

    FDA and DEA violate self sovereignty over your own body and therefore are a violation of right.

    I don't think you could ever come up with an exhaustive list of actual rights, which is why ANY list is all but useless, and often counter productive.

    Best you can do is come up with a guiding principle and then apply that principle in whatever situation to determine if something is a "right" or not.

    My personal principle is "I am sovereign unto myself and over my property. All other beings are equally sovereign over themselves and their property. It is my right to act within my own sovereignty. It is a violation of others right to impair their sovereignty except by mutual voluntary agreement."

    I think it is effective. You have a right to secure your own person and possessions. Someone attacks you or steals from you they have violated your sovereignty, they have violated your right. Thus you have the right to defend yourself and your property. On the other hand, two people can mutually agree to fight each other, beat each other to bloody pulps, and rights aren't even in the equation.

    So set a philosophy that would seem to you to circumscribe "rights" and then apply that philosophy to any given situation like a measuring stick to determine what rights are and if they are being violated or respected.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    1. Right of might
    2. Right of contract

    That is it.
    FIFY

    If one believes in the first premise (and there are strong arguments for it) then the second does not apply because I can always use force to break the contract. Indeed, on a society based on "might" there's no reason to believe in "contract" because the stronger would always break it any time they please.

    A quote from Cloud Atlas: The meek are weak and the strong do eat...
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    There is the notion of an inherent right, which is the relevant sense here. There is also the idea of a contractual right, which is strictly synthetic.
    Agreed - the natural (inherent) right to form contracts is what gives rise to contractual rights, but the contractual right is outside the scope of this thread.

    If we return to the example of geometric forms, we can see the relationships of, say, the elements of an equilateral triangle. Three sides of equal length are inherent, as are three equal vertex angles. These characteristics arise as matters of the triangle's natural structure. These characteristics are not "created" in the sense you seem to employ. They are created when one creates the triangle, but cannot choose not to include them because they are inherent features of triangles.

    In a strongly analogous manner, it may be said that rights are inherent to the nature of the relationships between men. Put two men on a desert island and the relationship simply arises, replete with each man's concommitant rights. If I draw a triangle, certain relationships are always present. If I parachute two people onto that empty place, relationships similarly arise.
    Pause the tape there. It's more likely that relationships that violate rights will arise.
    If both men are equally physically strong and equally moral, then yes, you will find a rights-based relationship.
    If one man is stronger than the other, then it's quite likely to devolve into a might-makes-right scenario.
    If the men are equally matched but one is less moral than the other, then the less moral man will take advantage of the more moral man.

    Expand that out to a hundred men, and then you're guaranteed to have strong men and weak, and moral men and not. The moral men will argue that there needs to be some structure which keeps the amoral men in check, and form a state. Then they'll come up with a fairy story about how their morality is superior to the amorality of those they intend to control, and justify the preemptive use of force.

    The moral men become the amoral men. Always. It's exactly as Tokein put it: they succumb to the will to do good with the power, and in so doing become corrupted. Amid all the elves and talking trees and dragons, the most fantastic thing about Tolkien's writing was this: that the protagonists always knew they were being corrupted as it was happening.

    Rights, it seems to me, are nothing more than a recent (if innovative) way for the moral men to usher themselves into their own amorality.

    This is the only country in the world to have even paid lip service to the concept, and it took six years - six! - for our rights-oriented state to send an army to collect an unconstitutional tax, which is literally what they had literally just gotten done killing redcoats over.

    Every year we hear a new fantasy story about something that's going to make our lives better. EESU. The Thorium Car. Solar Freakin' Roadways.
    They always fail because it's apparent that it's going to suck money out of our pockets and not deliver anything.
    I submit that the only reason Natural Rights succeed where Solar Freakin' Roadways do not, is because it is always presented as something that already is, and it's not going to cost us anything.
    We've certainly gotten our money's worth in rights these last two and a half centuries.
    I think it's time we examine that fact a little more closely. It either means it's either going to cost more, or it isn't something that simply is.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  18. #45
    If one does not believe in a "Creator" to create your rights then there's no "authority" behind any "rights" that you claim to have. If you don't have a "Creator" then you cannot logically show how you can have "rights"... (I don't see it),,,
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianAnarchist View Post
    If one does not believe in a "Creator" to create your rights then there's no "authority" behind any "rights" that you claim to have. If you don't have a "Creator" then you cannot logically show how you can have "rights"... (I don't see it),,,
    By what authority does one have to violate another's rights in the absence of a creator?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    Pause the tape there. It's more likely that relationships that violate rights will arise.
    Let us distinguish between an inherent relationship, and the synthetic.

    The inherent relationship is that wherein the equal rights of men arise out of their equal claims to life.

    The synthetic, in this case, are those to which you here refer. They are based on violation, on crime. Those are neither natural nor proper, regardless of how common, much as the belief in a flat earth was not proper, or the terra-centric model of the universe, regardless of how many people believed it.

    If both men are equally physically strong and equally moral, then yes, you will find a rights-based relationship.
    If one man is stronger than the other, then it's quite likely to devolve into a might-makes-right scenario.
    Agreed, but that does not make it proper.

    If the men are equally matched but one is less moral than the other, then the less moral man will take advantage of the more moral man.
    Yes, but that only speaks to the crimes men commit. It does not invalidate the principles that arise as matters of the inherent nature of the relationship of one man to another in terms of their valid claims to life, which are inherently identical, all else equal.

    Let us be reminded that the principles of proper human relations speak normatively. That positive reality diverges significantly from the tenets only speaks to the failings of men and not of the principles themselves.

    Expand that out to a hundred men, and then you're guaranteed to have strong men and weak, and moral men and not. The moral men will argue that there needs to be some structure which keeps the amoral men in check, and form a state.
    This is only likely true in the case where men know of such concepts. Being children of Empire, contemporary men are likely to think this way. Go back to a time prior to Empire and men would not have called for such a thing. I might also question whether the "moral" men would so argue in any case, precisely because they are moral. To argue in favor of an arrangement that institutionalizes violation can hardly be deemed the position of moral men.

    Then they'll come up with a fairy story about how their morality is superior to the amorality of those they intend to control, and justify the preemptive use of force.
    Sounds a lot like, say, Bernie Sanders. Just as calling myself a "woman" does not make me that, labeling oneself "moral" does not render it so.

    The moral men become the amoral men. Always.
    I must disagree. Moral men do not become immoral. Those who seem to were never moral to begin with, but only put on the appearance of morality.

    It's exactly as Tokein put it: they succumb to the will to do good with the power, and in so doing become corrupted. Amid all the elves and talking trees and dragons, the most fantastic thing about Tolkien's writing was this: that the protagonists always knew they were being corrupted as it was happening.
    This view holds the same flaw present in the oft misquote attributed to Lord Acton about power corrupting. Power does not corrupt, but merely makes apparent that which had previously lain fallow and latent. All the great heroes, real or fictional, who fell from the grace of moral solidity only appeared to have been moral men. In reality, they had always been corrupt, the only thing stifling expression being the absence of the enabling powers. Once those powers came to hand, the demon within awakened.

    Rights, it seems to me, are nothing more than a recent (if innovative) way for the moral men to usher themselves into their own amorality.
    I do not think that this is at all true. Look to pre-Empire civilizations, including those few that still remain. Tribal anarchies where people look out for one another and respect everyone's rights. Those are the people whom to take as examples of how well such arrangements tend to work when men are not corrupt.

    This is the only country in the world to have even paid lip service to the concept, and it took six years - six! - for our rights-oriented state to send an army to collect an unconstitutional tax, which is literally what they had literally just gotten done killing redcoats over.
    No argument from me on that point. Our forebears pooched it ever so predictably, their success at least partly illustrating the weaknesses in the Constitution's specifications.

    I submit that the only reason Natural Rights succeed where Solar Freakin' Roadways do not, is because it is always presented as something that already is, and it's not going to cost us anything.
    It IS something that "is". That anyone would think these things come with no cost is testament to the endless potential of human stupidity.

    We've certainly gotten our money's worth in rights these last two and a half centuries.
    I think it's time we examine that fact a little more closely. It either means it's either going to cost more, or it isn't something that simply is.
    Cost more: right answer. More involvement; more awareness; more willingness to seriously damage those who threaten violations; more and better knowledge on the matter of freedom; better attitudes where people are willing to kill and die for the preservation of proper human relations as matters of universal interpersonal practice.

    The problem, as I have oft repeated of late is that people want all the apparent benefits of freedom without having to bear any of the costs. That formula is guaranteed to fail.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    By what authority does one have to violate another's rights in the absence of a creator?
    The "authority" of might... Might makes right... The strong rule over the weak... Without a "Creator" there is nothing to limit one's violence toward another. Indeed violence would be the most likely way to get ahead. "The meek are weak and the strong do eat..."
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianAnarchist View Post
    Without a "Creator" there is nothing to limit one's violence toward another. Indeed violence would be the most likely way to get ahead.
    This is what brings me pause when people go out of their way to strategically take a creator out of the picture while also proceeding to leech onto its context. It's a dangerous and clever reframe of Natural Law into a Man-over-God logistic. Some, unfortunately, seek violence for the sake of amusing their own reckless and sadistic whims. These are dangerous men. They encite. They solicit chaos just for the sake of having chaos. Yet these men will never act of their own will to participate in its physical function.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-05-2016 at 11:04 PM.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Michael View Post
    This is what brings me pause when people go out of their way to strategically take a creator out of the picture while also proceeding to leech onto its context. It's a dangerous and clever reframe of Natural Law into a Man-over-God logistic. Some, unfortunately, seek violence for the sake of amusing their own reckless and sadistic whims. These are dangerous men. They encite. They solicit chaos just for the sake of having chaos. Yet these men will never act of their own will to participate in its physical function.
    These men gravitate towards goonerment...
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianAnarchist View Post
    The "authority" of might... Might makes right... The strong rule over the weak... Without a "Creator" there is nothing to limit one's violence toward another. Indeed violence would be the most likely way to get ahead. "The meek are weak and the strong do eat..."
    How is this different than what we have now?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    How is this different than what we have now?
    Because most of us acknowledge that it's wrong. If it becomes accepted as the norm, then we are really foulked...
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianAnarchist View Post
    These men gravitate towards goonerment...
    Yep. This is true. Sure wouldn't know it to hear them say it, though. Well...unless we're paying attenion, I suppose. It's very important that we pay attention.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-18-2016 at 10:48 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •