A debate about rights and privileges

[WaterWitchin]

It was English, just wasn’t sayin what I thought you meant.

---------- Post added at 04:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Roberta

That reminds me of an absolutely hilarious routine, that I had the privilege to attend, from the late, great Lenny Bruce, with regard to the origin of the Penal Codes (something he had a lot of unfortunate experience with ) Ok, I'm of a "certain age"...

Yes!!! The comic routine I have recently been channeling though, not in regard to this thread, is the old SNL skit with Jane Ackroyd and Dan Akroyd... a Point/Counterpoint skit... Jane, you ignorant slut! It just revolves around in my head much moreso than it should.

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by DirtyCoconuts

Subrosa, i do not disagree but i am describing does not even need any government to occur, just two people who decide to do certain things to work together.

look at caveman times..it is simpler. no authority, no governance of any kind and then...people decided to group together to get the benefits of that. in exchange they forego certain "rights".

the silliest example i can come up with is peeing and pooping everywhere...if this was the rule of the caveman group you wanted to be a part of...you have to give up that right. You still have the ability to do it but there are consequences.

that is all i meant by society is a group of people who decide on the freedoms or rights that they all agree they will give up for their own greater good.

Just because a bunch of people vote for something they want their government to do doesn't automatically mean it's for any greater good. You have to analyze what it actually is they're voting for with an understanding that anything any government does is predicated upon either force or the threat of force. From a moral standpoint there are 3 types of force, initiatory, defensive, and retaliatory. One of the hallmarks of a civilized society is delegating to the government the exclusive right to use retaliatory force. If someone walks up to you and tries to forcibly take your money, they're initiating force, which is morally indefensible within the framework of natural rights. You most assuredly have the right to use force to defend yourself within the same framework. But if the person succeeds and gets away it and the next day you see him walking into his house, you can't wait outside with a baseball bat until he comes out again, even though you have a right to your property that he stole. We delegate that force to the government. And when large scale defense is necessary that right is also delegated to the government. But the government has no moral right to initiate force, even if its citizens vote for it to do so.

[DirtyCoconuts]

Originally Posted by rbarata

Everyone's rights presupose responsabilities.

I studied Political Science for five years and this is the only thing anyone needs to know!

---------- Post added at 06:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Subrosa

Just because a bunch of people vote for something they want their government to do doesn't automatically mean it's for any greater good. You have to analyze what it actually is they're voting for with an understanding that anything any government does is predicated upon either force or the threat of force. From a moral standpoint there are 3 types of force, initiatory, defensive, and retaliatory. One of the hallmarks of a civilized society is delegating to the government the exclusive right to use retaliatory force. If someone walks up to you and tries to forcibly take your money, they're initiating force, which is morally indefensible within the framework of natural rights. You most assuredly have the right to use force to defend yourself within the same framework. But if the person succeeds and gets away it and the next day you see him walking into his house, you can't wait outside with a baseball bat until he comes out again, even though you have a right to your property that he stole. We delegate that force to the government. And when large scale defense is necessary that right is also delegated to the government. But the government has no moral right to initiate force, even if its citizens vote for it to do so.

i agree with you and i think this is becoming symantics...i want to stay away from government because you keep thinking it is a government vs citizen thing and this is way bigger than the idea of governance and authority..

the concept you are describing is the monopoly of violence...a fantastic concept wherein the people in a society give up their rights to dispense violence (retaliatory, vigilante, or passionate) and say that only the state can do that.

Now, go to some rural communities...and they might not adhere to that notion.

the point is, in order to be in a group, we all allow ourselves to give up certain freedoms (looser than rights and no political connotation) like the freedom to poop anywhere.







As an aside i love there are three pages of civilized intelligent discourse among people with different opinions!!!! yay Orchid Board

---------- Post added at 06:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 PM ----------

Originally Posted by WaterWitchin

It was English, just wasn’t sayin what I thought you meant.

---------- Post added at 04:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------



Yes!!! The comic routine I have recently been channeling though, not in regard to this thread, is the old SNL skit with Jane Ackroyd and Dan Akroyd... a Point/Counterpoint skit... Jane, you ignorant slut! It just revolves around in my head much moreso than it should.

JANE YOU IGNORANT SLUT!!!!!

[kg5]

Simply said.

Am all for the Guy that originally made all our plants and follow His laws for social inter reactions.

[claypot]

This is nothing whatsoever to do with orchids so why on earth have the moderators not killed the thread in the bud............unless, of course, the idea is to change the entire purpose of this forum.

[Ray]

The thread is almost a year old. Just ignore it.

[DirtyCoconuts]

And it is in the Off Topic section....

Keep it moving

[yug]

Originally Posted by kg5

Simply said.

Am all for the Guy that originally made all our plants and follow His laws for social inter reactions.

Actually, His Son said there are two great commandments (laws). I'm thinking that if those were closely followed, we'd have little need for most of the ones that exist now.

[Roberta]

This forum is about orchids. Politics and religion are personal, and both topics are likely to be offensive to someone. This one is offensive to me.

[estación seca]

Well, for the hundedth post, you should water it more.