3 ms·

So the government is not made of normal people? Is the USA run by lizards or something? Seriously, this is some of the craziest doublethink imaginable. Somethi

by pitaj 10y ago

So the government is not made of normal people? Is the USA run by lizards or something? Seriously, this is some of the craziest doublethink imaginable. Something is not made just just because the majority say so, or just because the state says so. There are unjust laws.

ajkjk 10y ago
There's a delight in arguing with someone who understands the commonly accepted positions and can speak to the subtleties and errors in them. This is the opposite: you seem utterly incapable of understanding basic, well-known positions, and you imagine I am delusional (lizards? really?) when your comprehension fails you. The state as a concept is not the same as a normal person, obviously. It is subject to different rules. Something is made just because the governing system that the people have agreed to says it is just. That's the theory that our system of government operates under. You don't have to like that, but you're ignorant if you just say it's false without going and doing some learning. I am also wondering if you know what a 'law' is and how it differs from 'the text of the constitution'.
- aminok 10y ago
  >It is subject to different rules. A person acting under the auspices of a state has no right to violate human rights. A state is merely a human construct. No human construct grants a person a right to violate human rights.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > No human construct grants a person a right to violate human rights Human rights are a human construct. Moreover, they only make sense within the context of social contract which only becomes practical when enforced by a government.
    - aminok 10y ago
      They're not a conditional construct. They are by definition universal. When something is a human right, we consider it to be an inalienable right that no party has a right to violate. And 'social contract' is double speak. It's an attempt to misappropriate the concept of a contract to confer moral legitimacy to majority dictates.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Something is made just because the governing system that the people have agreed to says it is just. That's not an accepted definition in most of the world, including the US, which accepts stuff like the UDHR. We in the West consider many States unjust if we consider that they violate human rights, even if their population supports that.

by pitaj 10y ago

ajkjk 10y ago

There's a delight in arguing with someone who understands the commonly accepted positions and can speak to the subtleties and errors in them. This is the opposite: you seem utterly incapable of understanding basic, well-known positions, and you imagine I am delusional (lizards? really?) when your comprehension fails you. The state as a concept is not the same as a normal person, obviously. It is subject to different rules. Something is made just because the governing system that the people have agreed to says it is just. That's the theory that our system of government operates under. You don't have to like that, but you're ignorant if you just say it's false without going and doing some learning. I am also wondering if you know what a 'law' is and how it differs from 'the text of the constitution'.

aminok 10y ago
>It is subject to different rules. A person acting under the auspices of a state has no right to violate human rights. A state is merely a human construct. No human construct grants a person a right to violate human rights.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > No human construct grants a person a right to violate human rights Human rights are a human construct. Moreover, they only make sense within the context of social contract which only becomes practical when enforced by a government.
  - aminok 10y ago
    They're not a conditional construct. They are by definition universal. When something is a human right, we consider it to be an inalienable right that no party has a right to violate. And 'social contract' is double speak. It's an attempt to misappropriate the concept of a contract to confer moral legitimacy to majority dictates.
icebraining 10y ago
Something is made just because the governing system that the people have agreed to says it is just. That's not an accepted definition in most of the world, including the US, which accepts stuff like the UDHR. We in the West consider many States unjust if we consider that they violate human rights, even if their population supports that.