5 ms·
No, 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.
by dublinclontarf 10y ago
No, 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?
- aminok 10y ago>Why not treat 'right to live free of racial discrimination' as a human right? Because I don't have a right to dictate how other people use their person and property, except to prevent them from violating my person or property.
- MarkMc 10y agoIt seems you are simply asserting the truth of your position, as though it is axiomatic that property rights trump all other rights. Person A says, "I don't have a right to dictate how other people use their person and property, except to prevent them from violating my person or property" Person B says, "I don't have a right to dictate how other people use their person and property, except to prevent them from violating my person or property or my right to be treated equally". How do I know who is correct?
- aminok 10y agoOne is the basis of a stable social order, and one is not. Once you abandon the principle of private property and self-ownership, then human rights just become a popularity contest, about which values and attitudes are acceptable (not polygamy, but yes homosexuality! Not white racial awareness, but yes other groups' ethnic/racial awareness!). It's not a viable principle to base a justice system on. It will inevitably lead to politics being turned into a venue through which groups fight to expand their power at the expense of others. This is hugely wasteful.
- flukus 10y agoMarginalizing large groups of people is the basis for revolutions, not a stable social order.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- paulddraper 10y agoMy inalienable rights were actually endowed by my Creator.
- Retra 10y agoPlease show me an inalienable right that has not actually been alienated.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 10y agoEven accepting the premise that rights are "endowed by the creator"--how does living a life free of discrimination not rank higher on the scale of fundamental rights than private property?
- dublinclontarf 10y agoThe argument is never about freedom from discrimination, but on what you are allowed to discriminate on. Currently race and sex are nono's but religion and politics is ok. Why should I face discrimination for my appearance when trying to get laid? Surely the government should ban women and men from turning me down for sex because I'm not attractive.
- Fraterkes 10y agoI wouldn't mind some governments trying harder to overcome the failings of humanity. More clearly approving certain kinds of behaviour may not change the minds of adults but at least sets a good example for children. The problem is of course that you have one culture deciding what constitutes a failing of humanity.
- dublinclontarf 10y agoAnd that is one of the fundamental problems. Another being(assuming we all agree on what a failing is) the rights you need to violate to attempt(and fail, because it will fail) to address that failing. Better to leave people to themselves than inflict certain misery in a misguided attempt to remould mankind in your own image.