Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-25-2012, 03:13 PM   #196
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
There is no "human right" nor "god given" right
I can think of no "Right" natural or otherwise that does not first become part of the moral fabric of the society, either formally (law) or informally (custom), of which it is part.

Rights are a human cultural artifact ultimately no different than the paper they are written on.


Last edited by wildman; 11-25-2012 at 03:18 PM.
11-25-2012, 04:26 PM   #197
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
arnold's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,292
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
I can think of no "Right" natural or otherwise that does not first become part of the moral fabric of the society, either formally (law) or informally (custom), of which it is part.

Rights are a human cultural artifact ultimately no different than the paper they are written on.
In one sense you are correct. A man living alone isolated on an island has a right to his life simply because he exists and is responsible for it. The concept of 'rights' in a political sense has no relevance because there is no one else to threaten him. When an individual finds himself in a group (society) and the other individuals agree to respect his right to life, we have brought the concept of "Rights" into law. This is the magnificent achievement of the Founding Fathers; that governments were the servants, not the masters of the individual.

I will quote someone who says this better than I can:
"It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill—but the inalienable individual right of another man to live. This is not a “compromise” between two rights—but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society—but from your own inalienable individual right. The definition of this limit is not set arbitrarily by society—but is implicit in the definition of your own right."
I think you will see this when you realize that if the majority decided genocide was legal, it would not be moral. Society has to tie it's laws to the moral principle that individuals have a right to their lives, and this is not a matter subject to vote.
11-25-2012, 04:36 PM   #198
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
arnold's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,292
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
Property rihts are a product of, and enforceable by the state.. There is no "human right" nor "god given" right to own property.. .
I don't think any dictatorial thugs would disagree with you on that.
11-25-2012, 04:51 PM   #199
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by arnold Quote
I don't think any dictatorial thugs would disagree with you on that.
It is not limited to "thugs".. How about the "power of eminent domain" which of course requires the state to pay you before taking your land.....for the common good

QuoteQuote:
In its 5-4 decision in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important, if very controversial, interpretation of the government's power of "eminent domain," or the power of the government to take land from property owners.

The power of eminent domain is granted to governmental bodies -- federal, state and local -- by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, under the simple phrase, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." In simple terms, the government can take privately owned land, as long as the land will be used by the public and the owner is paid a fair price for the land, what the amendment calls, "just compensation."

Before Kelo v. City of New London, cities typically exercised their power of eminent domain to acquire property for facilities clearly intended for use by the public, like schools, freeways or bridges. While such eminent domain actions are often viewed as distasteful, they are generally accepted because of their overall benefit to the public.

The case of Kelo v. City of New London, however, involved a new trend among cities to use eminent domain to acquire land for the redevelopment or revitalization of depressed areas. Basically, the use of eminent domain for economic, rather than public purposes.
Supreme Court Expands the Power of Eminent Domain

11-25-2012, 05:07 PM   #200
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
arnold's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,292
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
It is not limited to "thugs".. How about the "power of eminent domain" which of course requires the state to pay you before taking your land.....for the common good



Supreme Court Expands the Power of Eminent Domain
Taking land for infrastructure is one thing, but when the Supreme court sanctioned confiscation for economic reasons, they made an immoral decision. When a corrupt developer meets (bribes) a corrupt councilman who is to protect the poor schmuck whose house or business are wiped off the earth? The developer could do nothing without the government using it's power to evict. The little guy now has no where to turn to. But, as you said, "Property rihts are a product of, and enforceable by the state.. There is no "human right" nor "god given" right to own property."
As for me, I side with the little guy who cannot influence government officials.
11-25-2012, 06:39 PM   #201
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
lammie200's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,033
QuoteOriginally posted by arnold Quote
Taking land for infrastructure is one thing, but when the Supreme court sanctioned confiscation for economic reasons, they made an immoral decision. When a corrupt developer meets (bribes) a corrupt councilman who is to protect the poor schmuck whose house or business are wiped off the earth? The developer could do nothing without the government using it's power to evict. The little guy now has no where to turn to. But, as you said, "Property rights are a product of, and enforceable by the state.. There is no "human right" nor "god given" right to own property."
As for me, I side with the little guy who cannot influence government officials.
GWB comes to my mind. You mean like this: (Incidentally, it enabled him to turn an $877k investment into $5m.)

Taking Property - Reason.com

Bush and The Texas Land Grab - NYTimes.com

The Texas Rangers?And How They Made George Bush Presidential - WhoWhatWhy

In GWB's defense, I think that he later thought that he needed to enhance his compassionate image. From wikipedia:

Bush executive order
On June 23, 2006, the first anniversary of the Kelo decision, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13406 which stated in Section I that the federal government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." The order limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken". However, eminent domain is more often exercised by local and state governments, albeit often with funds obtained from the federal government.
11-25-2012, 08:57 PM   #202
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by arnold Quote
Taking land for infrastructure is one thing.
Still boils down to "freedom of the many" vs "freedom of the one".... doesn't it.............

11-25-2012, 11:52 PM   #203
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
arnold's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,292
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
Still boils down to "freedom of the many" vs "freedom of the one".... doesn't it.............
The 'many' are many 'ones' and if 'one' has no freedom, then a million ones is a million no freedoms.

QuoteQuote:
The American system is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy, if you attach meaning to terms, is a system of unlimited majority rule; the classic example is ancient Athens. And the symbol of it is the fate of Socrates, who was put to death legally, because the majority didn’t like what he was saying, although he had initiated no force and had violated no one’s rights.
Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom . . . .
The American system is a constitutionally limited republic, restricted to the protection of individual rights. In such a system, majority rule is applicable only to lesser details, such as the selection of certain personnel. But the majority has no say over the basic principles governing the government. It has no power to ask for or gain the infringement of individual rights.
11-26-2012, 12:30 AM   #204
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
QuoteOriginally posted by arnold Quote
"It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill—but the inalienable individual right of another man to live.
Clearly this is not true. If it was we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
This is attempting to elevate a more or less arbitrary social value to the level of reality of, say, a law of physics.
I am not aware of, for instance, any human constitution that finds it necessary to codify the first law of thermodynamics.

Death by "murder" is only possible within a human social context and does not exist in nature.

Last edited by wildman; 11-26-2012 at 01:19 AM.
11-26-2012, 01:17 AM   #205
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
arnold's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,292
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
Clearly this is not true. If it was we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
This is attempting to elevate a more or less arbitary social value to the level of reality of, say, a law of physics.
I am not aware of, for instance, any human constitution that finds it necessary to codify the first law of thermodynamics.

Death by "murder" is only possible within a human social context and does not exist in nature.
The quote you refer to was:
"It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill—but the inalienable individual right of another man to live.

What this means is that objective reality demands consistency here. What ties this to reality is the law of non contradiction. One cannot acknowledge that, which one denies exists. The claim I quoted, was making the point that one cannot deny life and then claim a right to have it. Thus, IF you accept anothers right to live THEN you may not logically murder him. Logic is based on the non contradictory nature of reality. I would hope all men's affairs took notice of reality and were thereby objective, and not " a more or less arbitary social value"
11-26-2012, 01:48 AM   #206
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
QuoteOriginally posted by arnold Quote
one cannot deny life and then claim a right to have it.
Are you sure you don't mean simply "one should not deny life and then claim a right to have it"?

Clearly people can and do deny the life of another but claim it for themselves. Unless you are reading very different history books then I am reading.

QuoteOriginally posted by arnold Quote
IF you accept anothers right to live THEN you may not logically murder him.
You have just reduced murder to a mere flaw in logic.
11-26-2012, 03:12 AM   #207
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
Perhaps that there are a lot of people out there who think (hope?) that a truly humane civil society is more than merely the sum of the economic relationships within that society?
I agree. Art and empathy are good in their own right and feelings are [always valid] and not only unless the (mythical) books are balanced. Balance is a good word too but just who is it that defines what that is anyway? Certainly not the bludgers on wall street.. right?

Last edited by bossa; 11-26-2012 at 03:19 AM.
11-26-2012, 04:16 AM - 1 Like   #208
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
Balance is a good word too but just who is it that defines what that is anyway? Certainly not the bludgers on wall street.. right?
You do it you have elevated economics and particularly laissez-faire capitalism to a level of metaphysical certainty that turns it into a civil religion.
11-26-2012, 05:23 AM   #209
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
You do it you have elevated economics and particularly laissez-faire capitalism to a level of metaphysical certainty that turns it into a civil religion.
No, I don't do that but Politicians do.
11-26-2012, 05:29 AM   #210
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
No, I don't do that but Politicians do.
I was using the impersonal "you" and not referring to you personally - sorry for the misunderstanding.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
beliefs, care, decisions, health, hope, life, majority, party, people, voters
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What I have learned slip Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 01-10-2011 07:55 AM
iStockPhoto -- what I learned this round TiJean Photographic Technique 6 06-27-2008 08:44 PM
Back from Atlanta Aquarium, what I have learned Buddha Jones Photographic Technique 11 04-02-2008 01:13 PM
What I learned Yesterday! rmtagg Photographic Technique 2 03-29-2008 03:14 PM
What I learned today! rmtagg Photographic Technique 23 03-24-2008 07:11 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:45 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top