Subject:
|
Rights, Who needs them? (was Re: Abortion...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:33:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
898 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
>
> Scott A wrote:
>
> > > <topped>
> > > The general principle is that one has the right to do as one wishes,
> > > <tailed>
Scott, of course, snipped the subordinate clause I put on there, the clause
showing a balance of rights so that all rights are respected. As is his
wont. Snip away what might disagree with your point or show that the other
side is reasonable. Uncritical thinker!
> > I also happy that the state
> > meddles in my affairs and invades my privacy
If you can just learn to love Big Brother, you'll be all set, eh Scott?
> > ... to make sure I am giving my
> > children access to these things. I'm happy that if I were ever become
> > addicted to drugs, the state would intervene to protect me and my family.
As long as you believe that Big Brother is doing the "right thing" anyway,
whatever that is.
But since you don't acknowledge the legitimacy of a rights based calculus,
you're going to have a hard time determining what that right thing actually
is... perhaps you can use opinion polls? (how the individuals being polled
arrived at the conclusion they hold is not relevant, or is it?) Maybe you
could consult a mystic? Or maybe just go with what feels good to you, or
whatever seems to be getting the most sympathetic coverage in the press? or
maybe just what the government TELLS you to think. Why think? Let an
apparatchik think for you, let the media think for you, let your fellow
citizens think for you (but who's thinking for THEM?) ... it's so much easier.
Uncritical thinker!
Strangely enough, the siamese twin decision you cited, Scott... that
decision actually DID use a rights based calculus. Are you saying you
disagree with the approach they used? Or is it only applicable to siamese
twins? Or what? Or didn't you think that far ahead when you decided to cite it?
Uncritical thinker!
> Wow. And this is probably where the discuss ends, because we in America value
> *FREEDOM* and *LIBERTY*. It is the basis for our existence, and why further
> debate is pointless. You welcome government telling you what you can and cannot
> do. We have a Constitution that tells the government what it can and cannot do
> *to us*. It is a huge difference.
>
> I'm glad you consider yourself lucky; but it is not the American Way.
Well said, John. As you all may recall, we in America had a revolution in
which we ejected our oppressors as not having legitimate authority, not
having the consent of the governed, and we came to a vastly different
conclusion about the proper balance between government and individual rights
than the Old World countries (then OR now) did. Even though the British
Monarchy is mostly ornamental at this point, it reminds the populace that
since power flows from the monarchy, the government is based on a "might
makes right" approach. NOT a "consent of the governed" approach.
Scott likes that.
And Scott (and his ilk) have the gall to insinuate that *my* beliefs are
antisocial, that all I care about is my own personal accumulation of wealth
(while Scott contributes far less to the growth of this little LEGO
community here, our only interaction by which to judge him, than I do), and
that he somehow cares more about his fellow man (while supporting the
looting of their property at gunpoint to support his pet social theories)
than I do.
Laughable on the face of it, really. Uncritical thinker, safely ignorable.
John and I may differ about the particular question of this subthread,
abortion, (or we may not, I don't know what to think, exactly, about it) but
we both are basing our arguments on what the parties involved are, when they
become involved, and what their rights are, and what is to be done about it,
rather than on an acknowledgement that ultimately, government fiat (without
regard to rights, fairness or justice) is a legitimate way to make decisions.
Bravo, John!
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Rights, Who needs them? (was Re: Abortion...
|
| (...) I was not trying to hide that Larry. And I did alert any readers to that fact - which is what you chose not to answer my questions. That aside, looking at the tone of some of the LP aims, I feel that they do not care too much for the rights of (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
