Natural Human Rights

[squee]

Let us first suppose that there is something wonderful, mysterious, and magnificent about the Human Being in all its myriad forms. Is it not apparent that we have abilities beyond those of animals? Abilities that are, in fact, more than a simple extension of brainpower; Human beings have a Natural Soul, which grants us certain Natural Rights.

In the Constitution these rights were stated thusly: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Implicit in this is the idea that humans have the right to live their lives in whatever mode they see fit, without fear of unreasonable interference from others. Here, laws created by Nature are intertwined with laws created by Man, because as much as I hate to admit it, it seems as if what is "reasonable" or "unreasonable" may be relative--dependant upon time, circumstance, and/or point of view. These Laws created by Man may at times restrict, but never PREVENT, the exercise of Natural Laws.

Some instances. Certain requirments must be met to make sure that nobody can try and prevent me from enjoying my Natural Rights--I have the right to defend myself from oppression. I have the right to speak out against it. These rights are given by Men or by consensus of Men but they are essential for me to exercise my Natural Rights--and so, these may be squeezed or restricted but should never be abolished or twisted to the point that my Natural Rights are threatened.

Is everyone with me so far?

Power-hungry conservatives have stereotypically wanted to suppress the individual's rights. Nowadays, power-hungry liberals simply go to the opposite extreme and expand the notion of rights to the absurd and let us fuck each other up (there are non-power-hungry individuals on either side, I am sure). All while subtly trying to guide people's ideology so that instead of random outbursts or clashes, you have masses of people--THE Masses, the norm, John Q. Public--trying to pressure you and influence you so you feel OUT OF PLACE. This is the same thing that would happen with extreme conservatism--you get an easily controllable, faceless mass of a population that you can lead around by the crank. And it does not care about what happens to it because as long as you have given it what it thinks is important, you can forget all that is REALLY important:

Dignity...
Integrity...
Family...
Honor...
Fellowship...

Freedom.


And the worst part about it is, they will convince your children that this is NORMAL and that their parents are somehow fucked up for believing different.

So...what the fuck do we do about it?

------------------
Non sibi sed patriae
Non nobis Domine, Domine! ...Sed nomine Tuo da gloriam!

[Spooky]

Human beings have a Natural Soul, which grants us certain Natural Rights.

I personally disagree wiht the premise and assumption of the whole argument.

------------------
------------------
sp00ky (http://www.roughjustice.co.uk)
---------------------------
Disclaimer
------------------------------
I am not expecting to change anything by this post other than awareness. Please do not take anything I say as fact, I am only relaying opinon of limited sources, who themselves know nothing and thus should also be ignored as heresay and could never be admissable in a court of law.

[Spooky]

BTW squee. You know that the idea of 'natural rights' is a liberal one yes? Locke I believe to be precise.

ironic huh?

------------------
------------------
sp00ky (http://www.roughjustice.co.uk)
---------------------------
Disclaimer
------------------------------
I am not expecting to change anything by this post other than awareness. Please do not take anything I say as fact, I am only relaying opinon of limited sources, who themselves know nothing and thus should also be ignored as heresay and could never be admissable in a court of law.

[Dog Breath]

There goes Spooky tossing in a 12 foot wrench into the thread before it even get's started! http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

Those rights are linked to our wants and needs, To control them is true power.
Someone will always want to diminish your "Natural Rights". Less power for you = more power for me.

To keep from being utterly dominated a balance of force must exist. When you have no means with which to resist you then automaticaly are at the will of others whom do. In a perfect world those people would allow you to exercise your rights anyway. Most people would. Unfortunately it only takes a minute few to take advantage of your inability to resist to completely inhibit your rights.

It is simple human nature. We must all struggle and speak out. The moment you don't you lose the ability to struggle and speak out.

And Spooky....That's a funny handle for someone whom does not believe in ghosts.

------------------
If I had known I would be stuck with this name forever I would have thought of something clever.
<IMG SRC="http://www1.iwvisp.com/cas07/chinese.gif" border=0>

[Dog Breath]

A monkey doing sign language is the same as a Parrot whom speaks. They both mimic the behavior of humans. Yes monkies are smart but you can't teach them to heard sheep. I would put a border collie up against a monkey in a spelling bee any time http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

RW do you have any links to the Philosophy of Individualism?
It is hard to either agree or disagree without understanding the context you are using.

------------------
If I had known I would be stuck with this name forever I would have thought of something clever.
<IMG SRC="http://www1.iwvisp.com/cas07/chinese.gif" border=0>

[Back Tick]

I disagree, there is no soul that gives us our rights. We have our rights because we took them by force in a revolution. The rest of the world followed suit.

As to conservatives wanting to take away your rights, thats bullocks. complete and 100%

The precept of conservatism is maintaining our rights. WHO seems to be completely willing to give up our "unalienable" rights for the safety of the dumb masses from the dumb masses? Ultra-liberals.

------------------
Im not apathetic, im a
Taoist.

Back Tick: The poster formerly known as PseudonymX

[MAC]

I know I've covered this before but I'll go at it again....

What are rights?

They are the things we know we would fight for.
We call them rights so we don't have to fight over them.

100% I agree with the idea that "humans" as a species aren't granted shit except the physical chacrateristics they display.

I don't give a crap what you believe about souls etc. You are granted nothing except presence until you use exercise your rights.

(presence--->"all men are created equal"---with "created" being the operative word)

(exercise--->see my thread on practice)

For Example:
Once I decide there is a god and feel the need to worship I have the right.
If you try to stop me, I will fight you.

You have the right to say
"I believe in a different God and theMAC's god is false"
But you cannot try to force me to stop worshipping or I will retaliate in force.

Thats rights.

If my neighbor sees you attack me because of my belief in my God then he has to say to himself
"What will they do to me if they don't like my god?"

A "just" man would aid me in my fight.

That is the POV our costitution was written from and, believe it or not, that's why it still works today.....

Now for the inevitable arguement.
What if you protest my god?
What if lots of people protest my god?
What if the majority of people do not agree with my god?

Majority----->governing

Government-->seperate<--Religious Control

Until one of us compromises the other rights through our actions we remain free of physical conflict (see "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness")

It doesn't matter if this is our current democracy or ancient greece or communist Russia it only works if respect is used in the place of agression.

If we're just going to butt heads till one of use doesn't want to try to breed/hunt/drink in a certain area we have officially given up our rights....(see: middle class america)




------------------
Don't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

<IMG SRC="http://www.tyler.net/roguewarrior/images/macsnake.jpg" border=0>

[Spooky]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Dog Breath:
And Spooky....That's a funny handle for someone whom does not believe in ghosts.[/quote]

Blame Mulder and Scully.

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Dog Breath:
RW do you have any links to the Philosophy of Individualism?[/quote]

The closest thing you will find to a philsophy of individualism in JS Mill in 'On Liberty'. And even his is very breif. The idea of indivdualism is logically flawed anyway. I have to go to work in tenminutes. But I will write in this thread, or start one tonight about why, in my opinion at least.

------------------
------------------
sp00ky (http://www.roughjustice.co.uk)
---------------------------
Disclaimer
------------------------------
I am not expecting to change anything by this post other than awareness. Please do not take anything I say as fact, I am only relaying opinon of limited sources, who themselves know nothing and thus should also be ignored as heresay and could never be admissable in a court of law.

[squee]

I'm disappointed that nobody could get past the religious connotations of "soul." I wrote Natural Soul in the same way the founders cited a "Natural God," ie, not a deity, intelligence, or entity but a preexisting idea about the worth of the average human being.

The first step in controlling people is when you convince them that they can be controlled. You take away the rights that are theirs by birthright and tell them that ALL their rights exist at the sufferance of the government, because humans are nothing more than glorified animals. I think spooky would probably agree with that statement. This was all accomplished by the "Enlightened" scholars such as Kant, Heume, Descartes, et cetera (I might note that these were all Stalin's personal heroes).

So. If humans are nothing more than animals, then there are no absolutes--once you convince people of this you can do ANYTHING you want to them, and they will just accept it, because there really is no "line in the sand" that you can't cross. All their rights exist SOLELY AT THE SUFFERANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT, so who is going to complain when the government "adjusts" them?

It's like theMAC said...the Senate giveth, and the Courts taketh away.

Now, there are certain things that you would expect, certain tactical moves for the government to make, while pursuing this.
For one, you would expect them to emphasize "diversity" over "community..." Diversity of appearance over diversity of thought.

It comes down to this: Depending on who is in power, we're either all going to LOOK the same or we're all going to THINK the same...so. Look around you...

------------------
Non sibi sed patriae
Non nobis Domine, Domine! ...Sed nomine Tuo da gloriam!

[Cruise Director]

Natural Rights.....let's look at the animal kingdom since they out number us in nature:

You have the right to set one foot on the ground. ( Unless you were laid in an egg and have already been consumed by a predator.) After you have hit the ground, you have the right to run as fast as you can and hide the best you can to avoid the predator which will run as fast as he can and lie in ambush the best he can to kill you.

That sounds about right.

------------------
There was a moment of utter silence before Hell's door flew open.

[squee]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Cruise Director:
Natural Rights.....let's look at the animal kingdom since they out number us in nature:

You have the right to set one foot on the ground. ( Unless you were laid in an egg and have already been consumed by a predator.) After you have hit the ground, you have the right to run as fast as you can and hide the best you can to avoid the predator which will run as fast as he can and lie in ambush the best he can to kill you.

That sounds about right.

[/quote]

You're wilfully confusing the term "natural law" with "the law of nature."



------------------
Non sibi sed patriae
Non nobis Domine, Domine! ...Sed nomine Tuo da gloriam!

[Cruise Director]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by squee:


You're wilfully confusing the term "natural law" with "the law of nature."

[/quote]

You are willfully assuming I have a soul. Natural law to me is the same as laws of nature. Our "rights" as you put them are given to us by ourselves, depending on our ability to accrue (sp.) them and defend them.



------------------
There was a moment of utter silence before Hell's door flew open.

[Back Tick]

Soul? There is no such thing.

Anyone see planet of the apes? the scene where the ape grabs the human, pry's its mouth open and looks deep into his throat, and grumbles "Soul? I dont see a soul in there! Do you?"

We are soulless animals with the evolved ability to think beyond food, reproduction, and sleep.

We can think of a mythical god that gives two shits. We can think of amazing ways to talk
to one another in higher forms of language.
We can think of amazing ways to construct giant infrastructure buildings, tunnels, bridges. We're the technological beast, aircraft, motor-vehicles, boats. Space-shuttles. The concorde. Jets.
We can think of amazing ways to kill one another and oppress and enslave each other.

We are further from having a soul that my pet fish sven, who has a 3 second short term memory, and therefore smacks into his ultra-clean fish-bowl glass side once every 5 seconds.

Theres the soul for you. Fish cant fire guns, not with their flippers and all.

------------------
Im not apathetic, im a
Taoist.

Back Tick: The poster formerly known as PseudonymX

[This message has been edited by Back Tick (edited 08-03-2001).]

[Skywalker]

i don't really understand this but maybe this relates to it...

we don't have our personel freedom...
for example, there's a chimp and he belongs to a group of other chimps...
there's a leader, theres mother's and babies... and the leaders get to fuck to girlies to make those babies... the other chimps that don't get any are the ones who can't beat the leaders, but they follow the pack anyways...
if a chimp in the group disobeys the group rules (they don't have distinct rules, just rules like only leader fucks, and if another tries to that isn't suppose to, gets beat)
so if the chimp doesn't follow these rules, he gets beat to death or banished.. and he'll eventually die...

we as humans follow these basic rules... but since we're so much in quantity, we've over-done these rules to insanity and chaos...

we're a bunch of rabid apes fighting over a banana...

------------------
"Do or do not. There is no try..."

[MAC]

Of course there is the whole
"things we don't know or understand yet" catagory.

You know sun came up on one side, went down on the other.
It was easy to accept it went around us.
Then we thought different.
Now we can prove it reasonably well.

Who knows whats next.

Till then use what works.

------------------
Don't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

<IMG SRC="http://www.tyler.net/roguewarrior/images/macsnake.jpg" border=0>

[Buddha's Penis!]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by squee:
Let us first suppose that there is something wonderful, mysterious, and magnificent about the Human Being in all its myriad forms. Is it not apparent that we have abilities beyond those of animals? Abilities that are, in fact, more than a simple extension of brainpower; Human beings have a Natural Soul, which grants us certain Natural Rights.[/quote]

this is why nobody got past the religious connotations. your point seems to be based on a premise not many people here will agree with.
i would say that "rights" only exist within society as a means of keeping order, and aren't natural at all. people don't naturally want freedom, they naturally want what their neighbour has.

to which abilities that are "more than a simple extension of brain power" are you referring?

------------------
you don't know anything until you know everything.

[squee]

This is fucking astonishing to me.

The most libertarian UBB on the entire planet doesn't believe in Natural Rights! Go read the fucking Constution again. "Natural, inalienable rights..." Read it. Reread it. Read it again. Until you fucking get a clue.

Fuck it, I'm just going to go found my own country. When the government takes all your rights away--because, according to you all we're NOTHING MORE THAN ANIMALS whose rights exist at the sufferance of the government--when you want to come in, you can just fuck right off back to the shithole this nation is going to turn into.

Fuckers.

------------------
Non sibi sed patriae
Non nobis Domine, Domine! ...Sed nomine Tuo da gloriam!

[Koliedrus]

Take deep breaths.

Look at the number or respondants. I count 7.
Correct me. I make mistakes.



------------------
Oyster-brain in a cookie jar.

[Mudflap]

<FONT COLOR="Orange">Squee, you silly fuck.

A few people reply to your topic with different perspectives and you throw a text based tantrum.

With the many pro-Catholicism topics you've posted, regulars here at THT are naturally going to infer that your stance on 'Natural Rights' are influnced by your religous beliefs and view your position with a religous connotation. Would you have been more satisfied with this thread if everyone just chimed in with "yeah", "I agree", and "you go Squee! Squee for president!"?? Hell, you probably would.</FONT c>

------------------
<FONT COLOR="red">It has to start somewhere.
It has to start some time.
What better place than here?
What better time than now?
All hell can't stop us now.</FONT c>

[Back Tick]

oh, i believe we have rights. but not because of any of the shit you stated.

natural rights? my ass.

we have the rights of a sentient species with the ability for complex thoughts.

we understand that there can be more to life than eat/sleep/fuck.

and therefore, we ASPIRE to BE more than animals.

because we can be. not because we are.

oh hey, fuck you too.

------------------
Im not apathetic, im a
Taoist.

Back Tick: The poster formerly known as PseudonymX

[squee]

Ok, I've calmed down. Mudflap, you're right, I shouldn't expect people to agree with me.

The thing is: I say something about a soul--my OWN perspective--and suddenly everyone is like, Well, I've got to be antireligious above all else, so I'm going to oppose this Natural Rights thing on principle.

Well, fuck that. Backtick is dead wrong. If your "rights" come from your comprehension, does that mean if I'm smarter than you I have more rights than you? Does it mean if I'm more powerful, I should be able to take your rights away? You're right, we're smart enough to form societies, but apparently in your world it ought to be a purely mercenary, dog-eat-dog kind of society, I guess.

------------------
Non sibi sed patriae
Non nobis Domine, Domine! ...Sed nomine Tuo da gloriam!

[Cruise Director]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by squee:


If your "rights" come from your comprehension, does that mean if I'm smarter than you I have more rights than you? Does it mean if I'm more powerful, I should be able to take your rights away?
[/quote]

First off, let me tell you that I respect your posts more than you think. Religion is not always a popular subject to defend or discuss intelligently and you do it WELL.

As for the above question, the answer is yes, smarter people do get more rights. They get more rights because they earn or create them for themselves. The same goes with power. Who creates laws that give you rights? People put into a position of power. Who takes away a person's rights? People in a position of power. I don't agree with it either. That's why I try and change it as much as I can.



------------------
There was a moment of utter silence before Hell's door flew open.

[squee]

Eh, I really don't do it all that well. GK Chesterton...now, HE would have made you all his bitch months ago http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

Cruise Director, tell me this...have you got a conscience? Something that tells you when you should be guilty if you do something wrong?

I think everyone does. I think the conscience is how you tell the difference between IS and OUGHT: This IS the way things are, but this is NOT the way things OUGHT to be.

I think that if you can say "I get more rights than these people because I'm smarter," then there's NO reason why you can't say "I get more rights than them because I'm pretty," or "I get more rights than them because I'm articulate in front of a TV camera."

Or, "I get more rights than them because I'm white."

Or, "I get more rights than them because I am a member of the one true Aryan race."

Where have you heard that before?

And by the way...there is NO difference in those arguments. "Smart" vs. "Genetically superior" for two reasons.

1: Everyone is trying to prove that intelligence is genetic now. This is the fruit of the Human Genome Project in the wrong hands: Eugenics.

2: The justification is EXACTLY the same. It's like saying, I have these obvious superior qualities, and so I must be better organism than this other schmuck. Well, what if I decide that my ugly feet make me superior to you? Do we decide on universally "good" and "bad" qualities when we're handing out rights? Where do we draw the line?

------------------
Non sibi sed patriae
Non nobis Domine, Domine! ...Sed nomine Tuo da gloriam!

[Cruise Director]

I do not have a conscience. I have a set of values and morals that drive me. As far as power, looks, money, popularity, etc. gaining more rights, I trully believe they do. I don't agree with it, but I still think they do. They definitely gain more priviledges than most.

And you DO have ugly feet. hehehehe

------------------
There was a moment of utter silence before Hell's door flew open.

[Buddha's Penis!]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by squee:
Ok, I've calmed down. Mudflap, you're right, I shouldn't expect people to agree with me.

The thing is: I say something about a soul--my OWN perspective--and suddenly everyone is like, Well, I've got to be antireligious above all else, so I'm going to oppose this Natural Rights thing on principle.

Well, fuck that. Backtick is dead wrong. If your "rights" come from your comprehension, does that mean if I'm smarter than you I have more rights than you? Does it mean if I'm more powerful, I should be able to take your rights away? You're right, we're smart enough to form societies, but apparently in your world it ought to be a purely mercenary, dog-eat-dog kind of society, I guess.

[/quote]

i think you should calm down on the anti-religious sentiment. you read it into any opposition and make it out to be our sole (ha) motivation, when it is not. i oppose the Natural Rights thing on the basis of my disagreement with the idea of Natural Rights. do we all have to be christians to discuss things with you?

------------------
you don't know anything until you know everything.

[Skywalker]

dpes this have to do with politics?

politics suck... http://www.thehypertribe.net/ubb/tongue.gif

------------------
"Do or do not. There is no try..."

[Back Tick]

Human beings as a species have more rights than animals because we have the capability of complex thought ABOUT freedoms.


I never ONCE said there was anything different on a person to person basis.


If you can comprehend the idea of freedom vs enslavement, than you have your rights. If you cannot, you're a ward of the state and considered a threat to yourself...

...or you're what our government is striving to make of us all.

------------------
Im not apathetic, im a
Taoist.

Back Tick: The poster formerly known as PseudonymX

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Animals in the wild do have freedom, if not rights. Nature is vicious, and the tiger doesn't give a fuck if the kangaroo is endangered (different continents, but you get what I am saying). They don't take it for granted, they just go about their lives, living it the best they can. Having the knowledge of good and evil can be a bad thing, because that influences how we think, and how we think (on a larger level) determines how we live and how others live.

With rights comes the two downsides

RESPONISBILITY

ACCOUNTABILITY

If we want these rights, we have to accept that we can be held responsible and accountable for our actions. As otherwise there would be anarchy, as is showed later on in the post (this paragraph was added as I reviewed what I was saying.)

We have rights that are set in stone, but they are violated all the time, that of the right to live without fear or intimidation, the right of freedom of speach and thought, the right to have feelings, the right to be beholden to only those we choose to. But since we violate these all the time (every fucking one of us to some degree) there need to be laws and regulations as otherwise there would be anarchy, chaos on such levels it would make Russia look like a playground. Because we all have a different idea of what our 'rights' are, and conflict would arise on such a scale that I don't want to get into.

So we need regulations and rules if we are to co-exist with some idea of respect and/or personal integraty and dignity, RESPECT FOR OURSELVES AND ONE ANOTHER. We have srt up systems to do so. They are not perfect, that is why we have checks and balances, and if somthing is going wrong, the DO somthing about it, and if it is so important to everyone than somthing will be done. Nothing we create is perfect, as we are flawed beings ourselves, but we can try. Respect, rights, responsibilities and accountability are the corner stones of this. Work it out.




------------------
"First they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I didn't stand up. Then they came for the political dissidents, but I wasn't one of those, so I didn't stand up. Then they came for the Catholic ministers, but I was not one of those, so I didn't stand up. Then they came for the Protestants, and there was no-one left to stand up for me"
"Justice, not revenge"
"The final solution, you see, is really final, because people who are converted can yet be Jews in secret, people expelled can return. But people who are dead can not reappear........."

[Back Tick]

thats a good point. and that sorta explains the downward spiral we seem to be heading into at the moment.


people seem to be willing to give up their rights, for 2 reasons.

1) a false sense of security -- we dont need guns, the happy happy police will protect me from the bad bad man. And if i cant have a gun, the bad bad man cant either. So its win win!

2) a way to push accountability and responsibility off onto others. Im not a dumbfuck for leaving the poptart in the toaster. I wasnt explicitly warned. I think ill sue kellogs corp.... It cant be my fault, it must be theirs.

------------------
Im not apathetic, im a
Taoist.

Back Tick: The poster formerly known as PseudonymX

[Spooky]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by squee:
I think spooky would probably agree with that statement. This was all accomplished by the "Enlightened" scholars such as Kant, Heume, Descartes, et cetera (I might note that these were all Stalin's personal heroes).[/quote]

1: Kant was a fascist and I do not agree with his political ideas.

2: Hume was a great man of logic and empitricism. But he never really made it as political thinker. Poliitcs was a side interst that did not warrent that much thought for him.

3: Descartes, as with hume was concerned with ontology more than politics.

4: To try and say that Hume and Descartes agree is the most idiotically stupid thing you have ever said squee. I can only assume that you have read neither men in full. If you has you would know that Hume was an empiricist and believed in the senses, and Descartes was a rationalist and beleieved in reason. They were diametrically opposed in all their thought.

5: To use Stalin and say that he thought of these three men as heroes is about as useful as a condom machine in the Vatican. You have done it in order to try and compare my understanding of politics with that of Stalin. Now given that all three thinkers were concerend with much more than politics, you have not only over-simplfied their thought, but also insulted their coontribution to science and understanding of the nature of things and beings. They were philosphers first, politcal theorists second. But you obviously don't know that of course, being from the school of science and not the school of thought.

6: If you must no what I believe. I agree with Hobbes' analysis of 'natural' man. IN that we have no distinct rights in the ecistance known as the 'state of nature'. We do fuind ourselves in a condition of freedom, but it is not a right to freedom. Rights do not exists in nature because they are only formed within a system of power of political contorl. The notuion of a right does not even come into being until you have a state. Be it a monarchy, a democracy, a junta or anything else.

I do not believe that there are natural rights as defined by your statement about the soul.

Rights are justified expectations about the benefits other people or society ought to provide. We are entitled to our rights in the sense that others have a moral obligation to respect them. Right therfore go hand in hand with obligation, a concept that can only exist within a polity.

------------------
------------------
sp00ky (http://www.roughjustice.co.uk)
---------------------------
Disclaimer
------------------------------
I am not expecting to change anything by this post other than awareness. Please do not take anything I say as fact, I am only relaying opinon of limited sources, who themselves know nothing and thus should also be ignored as heresay and could never be admissable in a court of law.

[This message has been edited by Spooky (edited 08-05-2001).]

[Spooky]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Back Tick:
We have our rights because we took them by force in a revolution. The rest of the world followed suit.[/quote]

wrong! The English Civil War and Revolution was before yours.

------------------
------------------
sp00ky (http://www.roughjustice.co.uk)
---------------------------
Disclaimer
------------------------------
I am not expecting to change anything by this post other than awareness. Please do not take anything I say as fact, I am only relaying opinon of limited sources, who themselves know nothing and thus should also be ignored as heresay and could never be admissable in a court of law.

[squee]

Whoa whoa whoa Spooky. You're missing my point: I don't think you agree with their politics. These are all philosophers held up as great thinkers by relativists...which is not a political view in and of itself, it's just that you can use it to justify so many, many things...

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Spooky:
1: Kant was a fascist and I do not agree with his political ideas.

2: Hume was a great man of logic and empitricism. But he never really made it as political thinker. Poliitcs was a side interst that did not warrent that much thought for him.

3: Descartes, as with hume was concerned with ontology more than politics.

4: To try and say that Hume and Descartes agree is the most idiotically stupid thing you have ever said squee. I can only assume that you have read neither men in full. If you has you would know that Hume was an empiricist and believed in the senses, and Descartes was a rationalist and beleieved in reason. They were diametrically opposed in all their thought.

5: To use Stalin and say that he thought of these three men as heroes is about as useful as a condom machine in the Vatican. You have done it in order to try and compare my understanding of politics with that of Stalin. Now given that all three thinkers were concerend with much more than politics, you have not only over-simplfied their thought, but also insulted their coontribution to science and understanding of the nature of things and beings. They were philosphers first, politcal theorists second. But you obviously don't know that of course, being from the school of science and not the school of thought.

6: If you must no what I believe. I agree with Hobbes' analysis of 'natural' man. IN that we have no distinct rights in the ecistance known as the 'state of nature'. We do fuind ourselves in a condition of freedom, but it is not a right to freedom. Rights do not exists in nature because they are only formed within a system of power of political contorl. The notuion of a right does not even come into being until you have a state. Be it a monarchy, a democracy, a junta or anything else.

I do not believe that there are natural rights as defined by your statement about the soul.

Rights are justified expectations about the benefits other people or society ought to provide. We are entitled to our rights in the sense that others have a moral obligation to respect them. Right therfore go hand in hand with obligation, a concept that can only exist within a polity.

[/quote]

Correct my assumptions here, spooky.
You're a liberal.
Liberals believe in relativism--"Your values are just as good as mine."
It follows that:
"Your rights are just as good as mine."
And, if I am entitled to do whatever I want to myself--"An it harm none..."--then I don't have to respect you either.

And, since everything is relative, there is no such thing as "moral responsibility."

Or so Kant, Hume, et cetera would all have you believe.

Don't you see? Your rights HAVE to be something that is independent of what people are "responsible" for giving you...if everything is relative then your RIGHTS are also relative...it's "ok" for them to be suspended in certain circumstances. Come to think of it, you'll probably agree with that too.

But, correct me if I'm wrong. Please?


------------------
Non sibi sed patriae
Non nobis Domine, Domine! ...Sed nomine Tuo da gloriam!

[Back Tick]

afaik english history is one big civil war.

our war accomplished something.


and if you will, our revolutionary war was an english civil war....

[This message has been edited by Back Tick (edited 08-05-2001).]

[Spooky]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by squee:
Correct my assumptions here, spooky.
You're a liberal.[/quote]

WRONG

I am not a liberal. Not at least in the American sense. Over the past year I have come to learn that liberal is a term used by many to define almost anything they are opposed to politically in the US.

Because I am not american, I am automatically in opposition with americans on many things because I am not nation-centric. As a result it would appear that I get defined as a 'liberal' by most americans.

I certainly believe in Liberalism, and Liberal Democracy, but for me at least these are distinctly different from what you guys seem to call a liberal. I am in agreement with the likes of Hobbes, Locke, some of Thomas Paine politically. All bastions thinkers of liberalism. After all the US is a liberal democracy (although some people call it a republic which it is not in my opinion).

When it comes to values, I am a believer in the fact that values tend not to have absoluts, and change dependent on historical circumstance. In that way I am in line with pre-socratics, and Hegalin dialetics. I also believe that Marx expressed the condition of materialist history correctly. I don't beleive his solution was necessarily correct but his analysis of history in terms of material dialetics was.

The problem we have here is as far as I am concerned, the term liberal in the US has been hijacked away from his academic and philosophical meaning.

I am a pragmatist.

------------------
------------------
sp00ky (http://www.roughjustice.co.uk)
---------------------------
Disclaimer
------------------------------
I am not expecting to change anything by this post other than awareness. Please do not take anything I say as fact, I am only relaying opinon of limited sources, who themselves know nothing and thus should also be ignored as heresay and could never be admissable in a court of law.

[Spooky]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Originally posted by Back Tick:
afaik english history is one big civil war... our war accomplished something.
[/quote]

I suggest you go an read about Cromwell, and then come back when you learn what the English Civil War and revolution did.

Your revolutionary war in its historical context achieved no more than Cromwells really. You merely maintained the status quo with aristocrats and not the crown.


------------------
------------------
sp00ky (http://www.roughjustice.co.uk)
---------------------------
Disclaimer
------------------------------
I am not expecting to change anything by this post other than awareness. Please do not take anything I say as fact, I am only relaying opinon of limited sources, who themselves know nothing and thus should also be ignored as heresay and could never be admissable in a court of law.