The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:42 pm
by Nightshade
Lays out the conflict that is facing us today.
Will tribalism under a superstate prevail and destroy the promise of individual human rights under the constitution?
Is the social fabric of the US all but destroyed?
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:16 pm
by callmeslick
known whackjob yammers on about 'black lives matter transgenderism'?? Seriously. You wish me to sit through THAT?
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:15 pm
by Ferno
Extremely hard to destroy the social fabric that the US has has for years. It's one of the most enduring traits it's had. It's survived wars, the depression, terrorist attacks and many other myriad of ills.
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:57 pm
by Tunnelcat
I seriously doubt most people here are going to sit through AN HOUR AND FIFTEEN MINUTES of blithering diatribe from an extremist Breitbart young conservative. NS,can you give all of us a quickie synopsis of what point he's trying to make, other than to denigrate people he doesn't like or understand?
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:01 pm
by Krom
Probably an hour and 15 minutes of destroying more straw men than a hurricane in a wheat field.
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:36 pm
by Vander
I watched the presentation, (first 30min) but not the questions afterward. I have two issues. The first is the notion that only his interpretation of what America is or should be is valid. It's a perfectly fine interpretation, but it's still subjective. This feeds my second issue, which is that we can only reach this subjective interpretation of America if we all agree with it.
I would posit that America is not and has never been static. Like human civilization, it is a work in progress. Our founding documents are not unimpeachable commandments brought down from the mountain to be adhered to for all time. They're the result of deliberation, disagreement, and compromise of people 250 years ago. A time when a good compromise was counting slaves as 3/5 a person. "Social fabric" didn't work so great for slaves or the indigenous peoples. Civil rights battles have almost always fought against "social fabric."
If I've gotten the gist of the talk wrong, please advise.
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 6:19 pm
by Nightshade
Vander wrote:I watched the presentation, (first 30min) but not the questions afterward. I have two issues. The first is the notion that only his interpretation of what America is or should be is valid. It's a perfectly fine interpretation, but it's still subjective. This feeds my second issue, which is that we can only reach this subjective interpretation of America if we all agree with it.
I would posit that America is not and has never been static. Like human civilization, it is a work in progress. Our founding documents are not unimpeachable commandments brought down from the mountain to be adhered to for all time. They're the result of deliberation, disagreement, and compromise of people 250 years ago. A time when a good compromise was counting slaves as 3/5 a person. "Social fabric" didn't work so great for slaves or the indigenous peoples. Civil rights battles have almost always fought against "social fabric."
If I've gotten the gist of the talk wrong, please advise.
At least you took the time to listen- and yes, it's subjective but the "version" of America he puts forth is a very good one. The country we call home should be a nation of laws and NOT of men. Any future compromise changes (amendments to the constitution) should always preserve the rights of the individual to be 'left alone' by the state.
Shapiro brings up the issue of "positive rights" vs "negative rights." The constitution as written provides us with "negative rights," meaning the state cannot and shall not infringe on the rights of the individual (without due process and so on) to be left alone.
"Positive rights" (like the "right" to health care and food/shelter) are a construct of the left/statist. They are used as a gun to the heads of people to demand goods and services in direct opposition to the original intent of the constitution's "negative rights" of the people to be left alone by government.
If I'm a have-not, do I have the right to demand shelter/food/healthcare from you Vander? Do I have the right to get the state to seize these things forcibly from you to provide for my needs?
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 7:11 pm
by Jeff250
The right to vote is a notable positive right (the government has to provide elections for you, has to count your vote, etc.).
In truth though, I think that arguing negative versus positive rights is just arguing over semantics. Everyone agrees that one role of government is to provide national defense. If the founding fathers had had more or less to drink one evening, we might be calling this the "right to be protected" or something in similar vein as the "right to vote" but for whatever historical reasons we don't.
If the phrase "right to healthcare" bothers you, just read it as saying that a role of government is to provide healthcare in the same way that a role of government is to provide elections and to provide national defense, both of these being things that you already agree with.
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 12:54 am
by Vander
Nightshade wrote:The country we call home should be a nation of laws and NOT of men.
Can you elaborate? Because I don't see how these can be viewed as separate. Laws are created and implemented by men. The government, to me, isn't the nation. The nation is the whole. Both the public space and the private space combined. They work in symbiosis.
Shapiro brings up the issue of "positive rights" vs "negative rights." The constitution as written provides us with "negative rights," meaning the state cannot and shall not infringe on the rights of the individual (without due process and so on) to be left alone.
"Positive rights" (like the "right" to health care and food/shelter) are a construct of the left/statist. They are used as a gun to the heads of people to demand goods and services in direct opposition to the original intent of the constitution's "negative rights" of the people to be left alone by government.
If I'm a have-not, do I have the right to demand shelter/food/healthcare from you Vander? Do I have the right to get the state to seize these things forcibly from you to provide for my needs?
They aren't "rights" per se. They're simple necessities of survival. Ideally, market capitalism is used for production and distribution of these necessities. But you might notice that most entitlements/services attempt to address failings or excess of market capitalism. My opinion on individual initiatives will vary, positive or negative, whether they should be federal or state or local, etc. But I do believe this should be within the federal government's purview, because otherwise it's pitchforks and torches.
Is clean water a "positive right?"
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 1:17 pm
by Tunnelcat
Vander wrote:
Nightshade wrote:Is clean water a "positive right?"
By God, it should be Vander.
NS, this question if for you. What gives a corporation the "right" to pollute the very water you need to drink for survival, or do you relish the prospect of drinking someone's free market sludge or toxins that they've dumped into your drinking water source? Profit? Is that a right? What if it was your neighbor who started dumping his sewage into your well because it was easier and cheaper than disposing of it properly? Do you as a person of free will have no say in the matter? Do want laws protecting your rights? Say you don't have the power or means to protect and enforce your own personal rights, you're just a single person, then who does? Who stands up for the rights of any individual in this country?
Nightshade wrote:If I'm a have-not, do I have the right to demand shelter/food/healthcare from you Vander? Do I have the right to get the state to seize these things forcibly from you to provide for my needs?
I'll put in a response for this one too. Sure, in our free market system, no one has the "right" to demand food or shelter from anyone, but what about the negative consequences of dumping people on the streets and letting people starve or camp wherever they wish? What about when they assault and steal from you in order to obtain food, or when they camp on your or the public's land and then soil the area with urine, excrement and trash, raising the crime rates and disturbing the peace for the ALL the surrounding neighbors? Who pays then? Make no mistake NS, you are paying for it one way or another. Even when putting them away in jail, you're still paying for it. There is no free ride and no free liberties. EVERYTHING has a cost. As a large society, we either pay for that society's problems through government help and programs or else through the subtle constant monetary drain we all get saddled with due to the crime and other negative issues that come with dumping the less fortunate, sick or mentally ill onto the streets to survive like animals.
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:12 pm
by Tunnelcat
Oh, oh. You just said the dirty U.N. acronym. Heaven forbid that the high and mighty U.S. should follow those lowly U.N. human rights conventions.
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Out of the 193 nations in the UN- just how many have legitimately lived up to those "human rights?"
4? 5?
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:29 pm
by Top Gun
Does that negate their intention in any way? Or mean that we shouldn't be doing so ourselves?
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2017 8:13 am
by Spidey
Yea, we should always try to live up to wishy washy platitudes, especially the ones that devalue being male, or mature.
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:16 am
by callmeslick
I'd like to ask NS if he understands the nature of a social contract? If so, he'd never need to ask dumbass questions about sharing wealth and the like. No one has the right to demand, but maintaining a civil society demands that those with a lot of assets share with those that do not. History shows, clearly, that to ignore that need leads to very bad things.
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:17 am
by callmeslick
Spidey wrote:Yea, we should always try to live up to wishy washy platitudes, especially the ones that devalue being male, or mature.
geez, I hope you are being sarcastic about the 'devalue' part, because anyone who really views them in that light has some serious socialization issues.
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:45 pm
by Spidey
No, I’m not being sarcastic…
Treating people according to their individual needs is not “special” it’s ordinary…there are no “special” human rights.
Stating that a particular group has to be treated “special” is a bull★■◆● platitude.
Of course women & children have their particular needs, but they have no more “human rights” than anyone else.
If you disagree…name one.
And be careful not to confuse “human rights” with civil, legal or other kinds of rights.
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 1:25 pm
by callmeslick
I'm having trouble finding the wording that gives them special rights at all. They deserve 'extra care' or 'special emphasis' or 'special treatment', but no where does the document suggests special rights.
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 4:00 pm
by Spidey
Sure, I guess anybody can suggest “special care” but when a human “rights” commission makes the suggestion, there is no way to enforce it without making it a right.
So maybe I misunderstood the intentions on the commission, I’ll admit that much.
So I’ll return to my first point…sounds much like a platitude.
Re: The conflict in western democracies (particularly the US.)
Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 6:18 pm
by callmeslick
platitude, I'll give you. Words are nice, but.....
