8 ms·
I disagree with how the question is framed, around whether someone can do these things: People can do all sorts of bad things; they can mentally abuse their ch
by hackuser 10y ago
I disagree with how the question is framed, around whether someone can do these things:
People can do all sorts of bad things; they can mentally abuse their children, they can gamble away all their family's assets, cheat their co-workers and customers, they can hate and do many other things to ruin their lives, their family's, their neighbor's, their country's and the world's. People have the right to turn the U.S. into a broken state like Somalia. People have a long history of causing death, destruction, and pain to each other; I think that amounts to the same point in your comment, and I agree it's irrefutable.
But who cares what I can do? Once we mature past childhood, it's meaningless; it doesn't inform our decisions. The question is not what can we do - who wants to do 99.9% of those things? - but what could we be doing? What are our obligations to our families, our neighbors, our societies and the world? What do we care about? What do we do well, where are we causing harm, and how can we do better?
Saying we can be racist - well of course. But it distracts from the real questions: What harm is being done? There is very well-established, serious widespread harm being done to tens of millions of people because of racism; it's gone on for generations. What can we do to make it better?
In most of the world, people (or at least some leaders) have chosen poverty, ignorance, and violence over liberty, and justice. In the U.S., people chose to do better - they could have chosen otherwise; I hope they continue to do so.
- rayiner 10y agoI'll put a sharper point on it: People must be governed.[1] People have an enormous capacity to be violent, racist, sexist, small minded, paranoid, greedy, and dishonest, and the whole point of government is to collectively overcome these failings. Obviously government cannot stop discrimination just as it cannot stop murder, theft, etc. But it can dramatically reduce it by imposing the proper social norms. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9Igooxb4D1c https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9Igooxb4D1c
- dublinclontarf 10y agoNo, the point of government is to protect your rights from violation by others. Those unalienable rights you are born with as outlined in the bill of rights. It's not to overcome the failings of humanity (an impossible task if ever there was one).
- clock_tower 10y agoHave you read _Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America_ yet? I think Rayiner would find it interesting as well.
- tptacek 10y agoYour inalienable rights are a construct, enforced solely by "governments". Your rates in the state of nature are nothing like the rights your countrymen have agreed to provide you.
- aminok 10y agoSo slavery is okay as long as the government determines it is. Great moral framework you have there. It's morally wrong to use threats of government violence to dictate how an individual uses their private property.
- flukus 10y agoYou know those "threats of government violence" are the only thing stopping the practice of slavery?
- aminok 10y agoI'm okay with threats of government violence against would-be violators of human rights, like slavers and murderers. I'm not okay with using such threats to deter private discrimination in who people interact and do business with. Violence is only an acceptable response in cases when a person initiates a violation of another's person or property.
- MarkMc 10y agoWhy is it only acceptable in those cases? Why not treat 'right to live free of racial discrimination' as a human right?
- 10y ago
- jomamaxx 10y ago"I'll put a sharper point on it: People must be governed" Then maybe the government should tell you who you can have sex with an who not to? It thought you people wanted the government out of your bedroom? Telling people who people can have in their homes and not is fascist. These are not commercial businesses. If you want to make a law stating that any flat rented out on an going basis constitutes a 'business' - and subject to regular rules - that's fine. But if they are homes - no way.
- HNisfascist 10y agomods banned yet another account that spoke against fascism. Obviously you allow pro fascist statements to go unchallenged. Apparently another voice needed to be 'governed' into silence.
- hnfascism 10y agoapparently stating pro fascist views are acceptable but challenging them and calling them out for what they are results in bans. Yet another voice was deemed unacceptable and had to be 'governed' into silence. Great job on your echo chamber HN mods, support open and free discussion unless it's critical of those who support government control.
- dmichulke 10y agoSo you're saying that people are really bad, so let's have a few people in positions of power to address that problem?