3 ms·

>>The idea of natural rights is frankly laughable. wow... That is a take I will say that, the entire foundation of the American constitutional system is base

>>The idea of natural rights is frankly laughable. wow... That is a take I will say that, the entire foundation of the American constitutional system is based on the idea of natural rights but sure it is all laughable >Humans have always had to fight for their rights of course... I am not sure how that is a rebuttable to the concept of natural rights. Nature is violent place in it natural state... >Democracy is the form of government where the fight is done at the ballot box Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb deciding on what is for dinner. A Constitutional republic gives the lamb power over the 2 wolves. > Seems pretty clear to me that the American people do not believe money transfer systems without AML/KYC are a right that people have. This is probally the most laughable line in your entire comment, do you honestly believe every law ever passed by the US Congress, or State government enjoyed majority support at the time of its passage Really? For decades now the "American People" by HUGE majority support has wanted to legalization of weed, last I checked that is still illegal

colinmhayes 4y ago
> the entire foundation of the American constitutional system is based on the idea of natural rights Although I believe natural rights aren't real, they are a very useful concept to convince people of. If you're able to get people to believe "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are somehow fundamental makes it much less likely for them to take those things away from others. So although the founders were wrong in a literal sense, their ideas did immeasurable good, so I do have a lot of respect for them. > A Constitutional republic gives the lamb power over the 2 wolves. Republics are still democracies, especially in the way that matters here. A system of government that is beholden to the vote of the people. There would be nothing wrong or unnatural about everyone deciding property rights no longer exist and voting to seize the means of production. We make our own rights. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-s... doesn't support your marijuana stance. Decades ago the american people by HUGE majority wanted weed illegal. As that changed it became legal, which it largely is today in places that want it to be. You can certainly get into federalism versus local government here, but what matters is that we are creating our rights as our stances changes, just as we have for our entire history.
- notch656a 4y ago
  KYC is a fourth amendment violation as it as a government imposed search. Weed is much harder to defend as a right as it is not an enumerated right, unlike the right to be secure in your person and papers.
- junofan 4y ago
  I think you’re getting tripped up on language, which is a shame, since you’re missing out on some interesting ideas. The natural rights thing is more of a thought experiment: first, imagine there is no government. What do people have? What’s the “state of nature?” This was a pretty radical idea in Hobbes’s time. So it doesn’t make sense to believe a thought experiment isn’t real. Like, it’s a thought experiment. Discussing which rights exist within the framework is the thought experiment. Then social contract theory is like okay, why should anybody give this up? What do they gain? Large groups of people don’t just do stuff for no reason (supposedly). Democracy means power comes from the common people, not necessarily voting. E.g. Athenian democracy selected officials at random.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    > imagine there is no government. What do people have? What’s the “state of nature?” People have whatever they can take for themselves, a.k.a. nothing. The base state is that people have no rights at all. Rights are nothing but an agreement among society that if everyone follows these rules things will be better. That agreement can change at any time.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      It's an interesting difference of opinion. There are those who believe natural rights are naturally conferred to the individual, and others that believe rights are conferred by society. These two personality types often clash harshly, because one sees society as having no right to interfere with his rights and the social rights person sees the dissenting individual as having no right to abstain from the "social contract" that they at best agreed to merely by being born and remaining in the boundary of many members of that society. In the earlier days, the US was far more individualistic, at least in the Western territories. There was some hope for the more individualistic rights leaning individual. Now I'm not sure what our last bastion of hope is from persons who don't recognize us as having any rights without dear government.

colinmhayes 4y ago

> the entire foundation of the American constitutional system is based on the idea of natural rights Although I believe natural rights aren't real, they are a very useful concept to convince people of. If you're able to get people to believe "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are somehow fundamental makes it much less likely for them to take those things away from others. So although the founders were wrong in a literal sense, their ideas did immeasurable good, so I do have a lot of respect for them. > A Constitutional republic gives the lamb power over the 2 wolves. Republics are still democracies, especially in the way that matters here. A system of government that is beholden to the vote of the people. There would be nothing wrong or unnatural about everyone deciding property rights no longer exist and voting to seize the means of production. We make our own rights. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-s... doesn't support your marijuana stance. Decades ago the american people by HUGE majority wanted weed illegal. As that changed it became legal, which it largely is today in places that want it to be. You can certainly get into federalism versus local government here, but what matters is that we are creating our rights as our stances changes, just as we have for our entire history.

notch656a 4y ago
KYC is a fourth amendment violation as it as a government imposed search. Weed is much harder to defend as a right as it is not an enumerated right, unlike the right to be secure in your person and papers.
junofan 4y ago
I think you’re getting tripped up on language, which is a shame, since you’re missing out on some interesting ideas. The natural rights thing is more of a thought experiment: first, imagine there is no government. What do people have? What’s the “state of nature?” This was a pretty radical idea in Hobbes’s time. So it doesn’t make sense to believe a thought experiment isn’t real. Like, it’s a thought experiment. Discussing which rights exist within the framework is the thought experiment. Then social contract theory is like okay, why should anybody give this up? What do they gain? Large groups of people don’t just do stuff for no reason (supposedly). Democracy means power comes from the common people, not necessarily voting. E.g. Athenian democracy selected officials at random.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  > imagine there is no government. What do people have? What’s the “state of nature?” People have whatever they can take for themselves, a.k.a. nothing. The base state is that people have no rights at all. Rights are nothing but an agreement among society that if everyone follows these rules things will be better. That agreement can change at any time.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    It's an interesting difference of opinion. There are those who believe natural rights are naturally conferred to the individual, and others that believe rights are conferred by society. These two personality types often clash harshly, because one sees society as having no right to interfere with his rights and the social rights person sees the dissenting individual as having no right to abstain from the "social contract" that they at best agreed to merely by being born and remaining in the boundary of many members of that society. In the earlier days, the US was far more individualistic, at least in the Western territories. There was some hope for the more individualistic rights leaning individual. Now I'm not sure what our last bastion of hope is from persons who don't recognize us as having any rights without dear government.