The US paradox

Post Reply New Topic

Who is against volunteerism?

Your right to life means you can defend yourself against an attack. It does not mean you are entitled to free health care. To get free health care someone will be compelled to provide it to you. Which means the portion of his life spent in meeting your need under compulsion as been taken away from him. Free health care means someone is a slave.

Are you in favor of slavery? I'm not.

ruveyn

No, it merely shows that just because you define human rights one way, doesn't mean that you are doing things correctly.

We have a case in this country at the moment where everyone is getting outraged that, gasp, prisoners have rights too! Our government doesn't want to grant prisoners the right to vote, but fortunately the European government is trying to impose it on us.

What about freedom from torture? Freedom from censorship? Freedom from having to give a bed to soldiers in peacetime?

I do. Kantian ethics is not subjective.

So you are saying that IF those majorities thought something in the constitution was wrong, it should be changed?

That goes against a lot of the "but gun control is not in the constitution" arguments, which were what I was disagreeing with.

[/quote]
In response to my point that morality is more important than legality:
"The constitution is the baseline for our legal system. The idea is that we all agree to it. Morality is a very subjective benchmark"

If you did not disagree with me that morality is more important than legality (my original point), then you made a misleading remark.

If you do disagree with me and think that legality is more important than morality, then you appear to have just contradicted yourself.

If morality is subjective and the constitution is moral, does that not imply that the constitution is subjective?

Well actually, you did. I said "Why is something "being in the constitution" a good reason for it to be a law?". You said "The constitution is the basis for our legal system" in response.

So when people say "we can't do that (e.g. introduce any form of gun control, stop hateful speech, introduce free healthcare) because that isn't in the constitution", they are effectively saying "we can't do that because that wasn't agreed 300 years ago"?

And to clarify, I'm not criticising the concept of a constitution (in fact, it is something I agree with). I'm criticising people who say "we can't do that because it isn't in the constitution". In this country (which I refer to simply because I have the most experience of it), if a new law is to be enacted, it isn't opposed because it contradicts an archaic law, but because it is perceived to be morally wrong.

You claim to be literal minded, but you must have really rationalized a lot of things to manage to create this arbitrary differentiation.

The only thing that makes the two statements different is the arbitrary location of the word 'entitled'.

So, let me change it.

"Your right to life means you can get free health care. It does not mean you are entitled to defend yourself against an attack."

The value is about the same.



So your claim is that your rights end where someone else's rights begin. Cool. So, not shooting at people without trial, aye?

But really. I don't think that in those countries with free health care, anyone is being forced to give it for free.

Not arbitrary. This is a very common distinction in moral philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_a ... ive_rights

If someone is attacking you in real time there is no question about trials. Res ipso loquitor. The thing speaks for itself.

The use of deadly force in emergencies is generally upheld in the courts.

ruveyn

For sure, you can claim that you were getting attacked in real time.

However, if you have time to get a gun and shoot, you have even more time to run. Killing as part of a right to live is non-sense.

Lots of common beliefs are arbitrary.

You'd make a good victim.

No it isn't. When one's life is threatened any means of defense adequate to defend it is morally correct.

You seem to be in favor of being a willing victim. Is that the case?

ruveyn

I quoted your post in its entirety.

Idiots fight back. Read good guide on self defense, running away is the optimal choice.

But really. Is it me or is the main difference between "Right to live = right to kill intruder" and "Right to live = free health care" is that one benefits mostly the rich, while the other benefits mostly the poor?

Let me draw it out for you;

Right to Live=Right to Live
If someone challenges that right (Attack/Assault) I can pull out my gun and shoot/defend myself because of that right and a few others.

It is an inalienable, absolute right.
Here in the U.S. for some, we still accept those.


Best Regards,

Jake

because making guns harder to get would be like having to go through more s**t at the airport. So in essence by what your post is saying we should make guns easier to get.

I had to wait to respond to this to make sure I wasn't being flippant.

Freedom essentially means that you are not subject to external control. If you are being tortured, it is not freedom. To use the phrase "freedom from torture" is equivalent to saying "freedom", because the state of being tortured is counter to the meaning of freedom. Any other example of using "freedom from ..." where the target is something that restricts freedom is redundant and sounds rather silly.

When you say "freedom from guns", it's nonsensical. A gun in and of itself doesn't have anything to do with freedom. It's an object. You have the freedom to own or not own a gun. You have the freedom to turn away from looking at a gun. You don't have the freedom to point a gun at someone in a threatening manner. All of these statements of freedom are related to you taking action, not the device of that action.

I'm not going to respond to the rest. You're projecting an opponent on me and fighting with it.

Fortunately for you, there are sheepdogs around to protect you from the wolves. Those of us that run toward the fight are the ones that make it so you can run away.