Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 92

Thread: Equal Right Are Only For Equal People.

  1. #1

    Default Equal Right Are Only For Equal People.

    Discuss. Pro and con. I have ideas, but wish to hear from the gallery first.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    This'll be interesting....

    Globalists-vs-Domestic protectionists

    Productive-vs-nonproductive

    Citizen-vs-foreigner

    Men-vs-women-vs-transwhatevers

    Property owners-vs-vagrants

    Nawth-vs-South

    City-vs-Country

  4. #3

    Default

    Depends what you mean by "rights."

    In the strict, no-nonsense (so-called brutalist?) libertarian sense, I am all for it.

    In the more common, broader wishy-washy sense? Not at all.
    The rebel of the 21st Century will be old-fashioned.

    No enemies to the right

  5. #4

    Default

    To the extent that any person wants to restrict my rights, he is my enemy.

    osan, tod, h_h, which of your rights would you like to have infringed?

    Let's make it multiple choice:
    a) life
    b) liberty
    c) property

    We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Discuss. Pro and con. I have ideas, but wish to hear from the gallery first.
    Who decides?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    To the extent that any person wants to restrict my rights, he is my enemy.

    osan, tod, h_h, which of your rights would you like to have infringed?

    Let's make it multiple choice:
    a) life
    b) liberty
    c) property

    I am your enemy.

    I would restrict any and all of your rights the very moment I determine you have restricted mine.

    Thing is it's really easy to use convoluted "logic" to conclude that ones actions or inaction's violate anothers "rights"..

    Far more interesting would be the equal people discussion that you completely avoided....

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    I am your enemy.

    I would restrict any and all of your rights the very moment I determine you have restricted mine.

    Thing is it's really easy to use convoluted "logic" to conclude that ones actions or inaction's violate anothers "rights"..

    Far more interesting would be the equal people discussion that you completely avoided....
    So you don't believe in the NAP. Yeah, I'd be concerned in my interactions with you.

    No, there's no way I'm holding anybody else's rights above or below mine. The idea that people's rights conflicting with one another is a problem in this world is the germ of statism. Which you're comfortable with I guess so YMMV.
    We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

  9. #8

    Default

    I believe that all men are created equal. and all have rights

    That is not to say there is no difference in abilities or talents,, or acquired wealth.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    So you don't believe in the NAP. Yeah, I'd be concerned in my interactions with you.

    No, there's no way I'm holding anybody else's rights above or below mine. The idea that people's rights conflicting with one another is a problem in this world is the germ of statism. Which you're comfortable with I guess so YMMV.
    Here you go again attributing your own ideas to me, are you dense?

    Go back and read what I've written, NOT what you infer...

    I'll say again in this thread; Your NAP is a good and noble idea that one could aspire to, in a make believe world.

    People are not nice, they're not honest and they're not charitable, some are but only if it doesn't detrimentally affect their family...Some........Not all.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Your NAP is a good and noble idea that one could aspire to, in a make believe world.

    People are not nice, they're not honest and they're not charitable, some are but only if it doesn't detrimentally affect their family...Some........Not all.
    If you feel that way about the NAP, I presume you feel the same way about the Golden Rule. Am I correct?

    Pertinent to your "People are not nice" point. Should government protect you from dishonesty and mean-spiritedness at the expense of others?
    We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    If you feel that way about the NAP, I presume you feel the same way about the Golden Rule. Am I correct?

    Pertinent to your "People are not nice" point. Should government protect you from dishonesty and mean-spiritedness at the expense of others?
    Slow down speedy.......

    I've already answered your query about government "protection" a couple of times in this thread.

    And here you go again trying to assume my thoughts with your golden rule query.....

    Everyone should try to be nice and do unto others etc.........Until the tables turn..And they will more often than not.


    [edit]

    I'm getting my threads confused, combining posts from this thread with this one...
    Last edited by tod evans; 03-15-2017 at 11:08 AM.

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Everyone should try to be nice and do unto others etc.........Until the tables turn..
    You just defended the NAP.
    We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    You just defended the NAP.
    "It's a good and noble idea."

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    "It's a good and noble idea."
    The way I see it, you demonstrated its practicality. The NAP's key element is the right to self-defense, gruesomely nasty and violent if necessary.

    Are you anxious to keep open the possibility of aggressing against somebody who hasn't done anything to wrong you? That's the only reason I can see that one would find the NAP inadequate or impractical.
    We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    The way I see it, you demonstrated its practicality. The NAP's key element is the right to self-defense, gruesomely nasty and violent if necessary.

    Are you anxious to keep open the possibility of aggressing against somebody who hasn't done anything to wrong you? That's the only reason I can see that one would find the NAP inadequate or impractical.
    Impressions of wrong doing vary greatly.

    I will absolutely punch someone in the mouth for lipping off.........But I'll most likely never resort to weapons in the face of a fist fight...

    There have been so many scenarios discussed over the years that I've lost track but I remember thinking what a bunch of nuts what with the argument that mouthing off isn't worthy of a fist fight and that fisticuffs are worthy of murder...

    The concept is a good and noble idea it's just not practical in real life.

  17. #16

    Default

    Not even sure what the OP is driving at here...

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    I will absolutely punch someone in the mouth for lipping off........
    Okay, kind of hollywood, but yeah if somebody said certain things about my wife or kids, sure. But it's like civil disobedience. You accept the consequence once you initiate physical force in response to somebody's free speech. And they take the consequence of verbally "aggressing" you. It's still not a violation of the NAP in spirit. There are plenty of NAP advocates that consider it relative rather than black and white.
    We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    osan, tod, h_h, which of your rights would you like to have infringed?

    Let's make it multiple choice:
    a) life
    b) liberty
    c) property
    None, if those are the only ones.

    That *is* what I said. Already.

    Now if you get into a whole lot of other so-called "rights," you will get a different answer from me.
    The rebel of the 21st Century will be old-fashioned.

    No enemies to the right

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    I will absolutely punch someone in the mouth for lipping off.
    That is not necessarily a violation of the NAP. Someone had a good paper or lecture talking about that years ago I remember; maybe Kinsella? Or could have been Hoppe. Anyway, the gist of it was that fisticuffs could be a perfectly proper and libertarian response to aggressive, confrontational, or even simply rude language in some -- even many -- scenarios and venues. You go to a bar or saloon and start trying to stir up trouble, it's just the accepted order of things that said trouble shall be stirred.

    It's all about convention.

    Kind of like a boxer really punching the other boxer's guts out is in no way shape or form violating any of his rights. In that venue, it's accepted and agreed upon. Such an agreement can be tacit.

    It's all about convention.
    The rebel of the 21st Century will be old-fashioned.

    No enemies to the right

  21. #20

    Default

    Totally stupid idea. Not worth discussing.

  22. #21

    Default

    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    steph video
    Hmmmm...33:18.
    That's about the same as Brahms Sym. #4, Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto #1, Stockhausen's Mikrophonie 1, Bach's Goldberg Variations, and several other good ways to spend the time.

    Say, dannno, instead of us spending 33:18 listening to steph, you think you've got what it takes to bullet point "Why Human Rights Are Wrong" so we can discuss?
    We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    Hmmmm...33:18.
    That's about the same as Brahms Sym. #4, Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto #1, Stockhausen's Mikrophonie 1, Bach's Goldberg Variations, and several other good ways to spend the time.

    Say, dannno, instead of us spending 33:18 listening to steph, you think you've got what it takes to bullet point "Why Human Rights Are Wrong" so we can discuss?
    It takes at least 1hr. of listening for the Stefan brain-worm to kick in and turn you into a Moly-Pod. That's why his followers keep posting videos without any written commentary.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    It takes at least 1hr. of listening for the Stefan brain-worm to kick in and turn you into a Moly-Pod. That's why his followers keep posting videos without any written commentary.
    I've listened to many dozens of hours of Molyneux. He's a thought-provoking guy. I honestly don't know how somebody can become an acolyte of his, but whatever. I guess there's a girl for everybody.
    We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Not even sure what the OP is driving at here...
    Glad you asked... sort of asked, anyway...


    But first, I am a bit surprised nobody has yet asked what I mean by "equal". No matter.

    My thoughts are wandering about in the dark forest bordering on the "might makes right". I am also having some difficulty in articulating myself quite properly, indicative of my current lack of understanding.

    We may turn our eyes momentarily to the notion of being equal. There is the sense as made clear in the Canon of Proper Human Relations, where we speak of the equal claims to life between all men. These claims are born into us. One man is not born with more life than another, or with that of a quality that is in some way superior to that of others such that they are inherently entitled to make superior claims upon the life of another above and beyond that of the other. Indeed, we may readily say with great and forceful credibility that no man holds the least inherent claim upon the lives of others. This sense of equality stands because it is fundamental.

    But with claims come equal obligations. The Cardinal Prohibition obliges all men to refrain from violating the rights of their fellows. But how is one to know whether any given action he contemplates undertaking will insult the rights of another? Clearly, there are those cases at either ends of the spectrum that are and are not violative. But as usual, as one travels the path from one end to the other, he finds a substantial "gray" region where the answers are not quite so readily determined. This fact alone is sufficient to require of a man that he be of an intentionally intelligent and learned character, for without such inclinations he is likely to make for himself many enemies.

    And this is the meat of it: The status of "Freeman" carries with it not just the inherent claims born to us, but the concomitant responsibilities and duties. It is only when a man assumes and embraces the totality of the Freeman specification that he actually becomes one. Until then, he is a goldfish asserting himself a london-pattern anvil. The assertion does not make the reality; it is the reality that makes the assertion true.

    Given the requirements of being a Freeman, are those who fail to ascend to that standard not inferior to those who do? By "inferior", my as yet unarticulated sense is precise: I in no way mean that, being "inferior", that the superior men are at liberty to infringe upon the rightful claims of the lower status. They are not "superior" in that sense, for were it so, the Canon would be proved invalid and utter nonsense. They are, however, superior to the rest in that they hold in their grasps the knowledge of proper human relations the others lack. Having this knowledge, they are in this sense "equal" with their fellow Freemen and superior to the rest. This brand of superiority sets the Freeman apart from the Weakman in that he knows with skill and sufficient precision how to predicate his contemplated actions and thereby judge them prior to engagement such that he does not unjustly trespass upon his fellows, Weakmen as well as Freemen.

    In this sense, equality is for equals. Still not quite sure how to tie this up neatly, but working toward my understanding.

    Another dimension of this notion is the implication that so long as the Weakmen are not in violation of one's claims and the properties that tie to them, the Freeman remains at peace with them. But the moment Weakmen threaten trespass and other insult, whether singly or severally, the Freeman stands at advantage in his moral prerogative to put such threats to their just ends.

    Now, one might say that this is a distinction without a difference, the right to act between Freemen and Weakmen. In a sense it is true, but I submit that an centrally important difference lies in the fact that the Weakman often refrains from violation of his fellows by pure happenstance, whereas the Freeman refrains out of keen awareness of his place in the world, amid the company of his fellow human beings. In those "gray" instances to which I previously referred, the Weakman is at least as likely to violate his fellows, however minutely and seemingly insignificantly. I would, in fact, be inclined to assert that he is notably more likely to offend than not. The reason chaos between men does not break out from sea to shining sea rests largely in the fact that being Weakmen, they neither know they are being violated in a given instance, nor do they care. They are ignorant and wholly dismissive and discounting of their inherent rights.

    Equality among equals. I would assert that the equality between Freemen stands superior to that between Freeman and Weakman, for the former is not only far less likely to offend, but far more apt to make whole that which he damages. He is, in a word, my vision of the Nietzschean "Übermensch". Weakmen are decidedly not the equals of the Freemen in terms of their knowledge and attitude.

    So long as his behavior remains minimally proper, the Weakman retains his prerogatives under true and natural Law. That behavior, as we see in the positive world, turns upon almost universally and woefully insufficient understanding, not to mention temperament.

    A broad question that arises in these musings is whether Freemen owe any consideration to Weakmen when they engage in rightful action that "offends" the latter. I say they owe them nothing beyond the basic courtesies and stand centrally within their rights to take whatever actions they deem fit in order to protect their praxeological prerogatives. What Freemen owe each other in such cases is valid and infinitely more important than the claims of the others, whose faulty and ignorant beliefs Weakmen nevertheless have been busily imposing upon the broadest possible spread of the population as their legalistic chicanery will allow. In a better world, the Freemen would put this nonsense to rest with the clarity of pure non-equivocation. Alas, the three-ring circus in which we find ourselves marinating these days is controlled almost wholly by Weakmen, or Corruptmen who pander to that which the Weakmen show the greatest affinity and shortcoming, which of course is always by its nature purely corrupt, supports and encourages all the worst in the human animal.

    When a vast plurality of Weakmen scheme and machinate to designs that violate the rights of Freemen, I say the only loyalty owed by the latter is to the latter. Equality for equals and the rest be damned... or something like that.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Who decides?
    Principle.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Totally stupid idea. Not worth discussing.
    And yet, here you are.

    FAIL.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Principle.
    Sure. Why not? It's worked before:



    It's not coincidental that the idea of realpolitik came after Napoleon redefined Europe.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    he finds a substantial "gray" region where the answers are not quite so readily determined.
    I think you'll find the gray region between your Freeman and Weakman is incredibly more vast than that found through morality-testing hypotheticals. Unless you only want to consider pure Freemen. And that's to LOL.
    We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
    Say, dannno, instead of us spending 33:18 listening to steph, you think you've got what it takes to bullet point "Why Human Rights Are Wrong" so we can discuss?
    I actually need to re-listen, it's been a while, but what it comes down to is that the word "rights" is too flawed, it is easily manipulated. It's easy to say that I have the right to do what I want as long as I don't hurt others, it's easy to say I have a right to free speech, etc.. the problem is that it is too easy to start applying rights to anything else.. I have a right to free health care, I have a right to education, etc..

    I believe he ends up falling back on NAP, but again I'll have to re-watch. I recommend you do, too. At least 10 or 15 minutes.

    I think Stef actually uses the word rights in this context in some of his other vids, so really it is more of a thought experiment, which some people find pretty entertaining (such as myself).
    Last edited by dannno; 03-15-2017 at 04:47 PM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-09-2014, 10:46 AM
  2. Why do people seem to think that men and women are equal?
    By FSU63 in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-09-2014, 09:52 AM
  3. Are retarded people equal?
    By Josh_LA in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-19-2009, 11:38 AM
  4. Obama Signs Equal Pay for Equal Work Bill
    By danberkeley in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-31-2009, 11:46 AM

Posting Permissions

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