Subject:
|
Re: Rights, Who needs them? (was Re: Abortion...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:32:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
956 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
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 those at the bottom of the social scale.
As I said before, I'd love to see the demographics of their support -
especially after those who only want more liberal drugs laws are excluded.
> Snip away what might disagree with your point or show that the other
> side is reasonable. Uncritical thinker!
I think I am being critical... and you don't like it! Call me what you want
Larry, I'm pretty thick skinned.
>
> > > I also happy that the state
> > > meddles in my affairs and invades my privacy
Larry, of course, snipped the context I put on there, the clause
showing a balance of rights so that all rights are respected.
>
> If you can just learn to love Big Brother, you'll be all set, eh Scott?
If you are asking if I love my country, the answer is yes.
>
> > > ... 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.
Well Larry, I live in a democracy - so it is my fellow countrymen and I who
set the agenda. If we wanted your set of ideals we'd vote for them. I doubt
we will somehow.
>
> 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?
I think we should have rights. You focus on making sure individuals can have
hypothetical rights to do whatever they wish. I have no real problem with
that. However, while you just what to give rights - I want to make sure they
are able to make that choice.
> (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 big business you set the agenda with big$$?
> 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.
I am an independent thinker. I do not align myself to anyone political
agenda, I choose to evaluate each issue on its merits. I seek self
betterment of myself and my fellow man. If that means laws are needed to
"control" us - I'm happy with that if the benefits are great enough. As an
example, take the current unsustainable use of recourses in the developed
world. Individuals can little to reduce this - governments can. I'm happy
for my government to use taxation from motoring to fund investments in
public transport which benefit all.
> Uncritical thinker!
I think I am being critical... and you don't like it! Call me what you want
Larry, I'm pretty thick skinned.
>
> 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?
I choose to evaluate each issue on its merits. I do not just stick to an
dogmatic agenda just on principle, no matter how illogical the extreme. I
have compassion for my fellow man - even those whom I have never met.
>
> Uncritical thinker!
I think I am being critical... and you don't like it! Call me what you want
Larry, I'm pretty thick skinned.
> > Wow. And this is probably where the discuss ends, because we in America • value
> > *FREEDOM* and *LIBERTY*.
Yes. Well. How long ago was it in some parts of the US that "white folks"
had the right to send their kids to school and expect not to see African
Americans there?
> 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.
I do not need reminded where the power lies in the UK. We could kick HRM out
of here right now if we wanted. In the UK the power lies with my fellow
countrymen, after all the UK is the birthplace of modern democracies. Those
does not mean we are complacent.
>
> Scott likes that.
>
> And Scott (and his ilk) have the gall to insinuate that *my* beliefs are
> antisocial,
I do not want to "insinuate" they are antisocial. I want to STATE they are.
> 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),
So because you assume you contribute to LUGNET more than I, that makes you a
better man than I? What a preposterous frame of mind you have.
> 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.
So I support looting now do I? I shall have to remember that. I've got a few
hours spare tonight.
>
> Laughable on the face of it, really. Uncritical thinker, safely ignorable.
Ignore me than Larry. You keep saying you do, but then you come back for
more of my thoughts. In truth, there are cultural differences between you
and I. The US system sits well with you culture, and my systems suits me. I
am happy to admit that life in the UK is not prefect. However, any analysis
of your system will show that, despite the wealth of your nation and your
(too?) strong economic growth, there are a great deal of people who are
excluded from society. Based on my own personal experiences, I fail to see
the LP simplistic agenda will remedy either the problems in the US or the
UK.
Scott A
>
> 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 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Rights, Who needs them? (was Re: Abortion...
|
| (...) 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. (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
