4 ms·

I was (and still am) trying to illustrate the "physical reality" that exists independent of the concept of personal liberty. It can be argued in many different

by Laaw 11y ago

I was (and still am) trying to illustrate the "physical reality" that exists independent of the concept of personal liberty. It can be argued in many different ways, but the actual, consequential mechanisms regarding a person's "rights" are enforced at a legal level, and are done so at the discretion of the state. Reality does work, therefore, as I've described, regardless of what eloquent points you might make about the innate personal liberties each person is "born with". This is my "clear" argument.

smokeyj 11y ago
> Reality does work, therefore, as I've described, regardless of Holy tautological christ, batman! > "physical reality" that exists independent of the concept of personal liberty How about gay rights? Or reproductive rights? Or the right to use Uber? To argue ideology does not impact our legal system is frighteningly ignorant. It seems evident that if enough people feel entitled to something (justly or not) it's possible the state is forced to adapt or not enforce unpopular laws. The state influencing society and society influencing the state are not mutually exclusive.
- Laaw 11y ago
  You're the second person to claim tautology, but you've both been wrong. "Reality works as I've described" is not tautological. "Reality works as reality works" is tautological. "As I've described is as I've described" is tautological. I'm further asserting, beyond the givens, that what I've described presents a difference from alternative conclusions, and what I've described represents the set of physical laws of this universe, rather than the ideological so-called "rules" of society, which are not enforced via the physical laws of this universe. We're talking about "rights" in the context of "what can and can't be done", and I'm concluding that what some people are claiming as "unalienable" or "innate" aren't actually so. It doesn't matter how many people "feel entitled" to anything. It does not seem that the state is "forced" to do anything. The state can choose to act and behave a certain way, but "forced" is simply wrong, as a way to describe how the state behaves. "Influence" is more accurate, certainly. It may feel "wrong" or "bad", the fact that the state maintains absolute control, but it's true. Only through the grace of the state's benevolence does the influence of individuals or groups matter. The state gives you many ways to move through its control, and is generally benevolent, but not because it has to be.
  - smokeyj 11y ago
    Saying "Reality does work" is tautological. Has reality ever not worked? Look we get it. You think you're right and everyone else is wrong. But your verbosity is only impressive to yourself. > It may feel "wrong" or "bad", the fact that the state maintains absolute control, but it's true Again, tautological. The "state" by definition is a monopoly on violence. Of course it's true the state maintains control. It's true by definition. Look at Mexico where the "official" government is guided by the threat of violence from local cartels. If the cartel is in control of the "government", then the state is still in control. But the state is the cartel. > The state gives you many ways to move through its control, and is generally benevolent, but not because it has to be. Edit: Removed unnecessary personal attack. My apologies. This discussion isn't very HN related so I'll discontinue.
    - dang 11y ago
      > Real talk. Did you have daddy issues growing up? Personal attacks are not allowed on HN. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't do this.

by Laaw 11y ago

smokeyj 11y ago

> Reality does work, therefore, as I've described, regardless of Holy tautological christ, batman! > "physical reality" that exists independent of the concept of personal liberty How about gay rights? Or reproductive rights? Or the right to use Uber? To argue ideology does not impact our legal system is frighteningly ignorant. It seems evident that if enough people feel entitled to something (justly or not) it's possible the state is forced to adapt or not enforce unpopular laws. The state influencing society and society influencing the state are not mutually exclusive.

Laaw 11y ago
You're the second person to claim tautology, but you've both been wrong. "Reality works as I've described" is not tautological. "Reality works as reality works" is tautological. "As I've described is as I've described" is tautological. I'm further asserting, beyond the givens, that what I've described presents a difference from alternative conclusions, and what I've described represents the set of physical laws of this universe, rather than the ideological so-called "rules" of society, which are not enforced via the physical laws of this universe. We're talking about "rights" in the context of "what can and can't be done", and I'm concluding that what some people are claiming as "unalienable" or "innate" aren't actually so. It doesn't matter how many people "feel entitled" to anything. It does not seem that the state is "forced" to do anything. The state can choose to act and behave a certain way, but "forced" is simply wrong, as a way to describe how the state behaves. "Influence" is more accurate, certainly. It may feel "wrong" or "bad", the fact that the state maintains absolute control, but it's true. Only through the grace of the state's benevolence does the influence of individuals or groups matter. The state gives you many ways to move through its control, and is generally benevolent, but not because it has to be.
- smokeyj 11y ago
  Saying "Reality does work" is tautological. Has reality ever not worked? Look we get it. You think you're right and everyone else is wrong. But your verbosity is only impressive to yourself. > It may feel "wrong" or "bad", the fact that the state maintains absolute control, but it's true Again, tautological. The "state" by definition is a monopoly on violence. Of course it's true the state maintains control. It's true by definition. Look at Mexico where the "official" government is guided by the threat of violence from local cartels. If the cartel is in control of the "government", then the state is still in control. But the state is the cartel. > The state gives you many ways to move through its control, and is generally benevolent, but not because it has to be. Edit: Removed unnecessary personal attack. My apologies. This discussion isn't very HN related so I'll discontinue.
  - dang 11y ago
    > Real talk. Did you have daddy issues growing up? Personal attacks are not allowed on HN. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't do this.