Switch Theme:

Romney says "47 percent of Americans believe they are victims" about whom he shouldn't "worry"  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
And yet you still don't have a Right to food outside of a legal system recognizing it. [...] You are the one confusing moral obligations with legal obligations.
No. I am showing how moral obligations are distinct from legal ones. I am saying the moral obligation exists apart from its fulfillment in the law.

   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

Are people unclear on the distinction between having rights and being able to exercise them?

Or, more prosiacly, the difference between moral/human rights, and legal rights?

Clearly, the difference between consitutional and statutory rights is lost on this audience.
   
Made in ca
Zealous Sin-Eater




Montreal

Well, yeah, they exists in the mind of those who claim they exists. Otherwise they would never actually become implemented.

[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.  
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 Polonius wrote:
Are people unclear on the distinction between having rights and being able to exercise them?
I have often wondered how the Republican rhetoric of "basic rights must be earned/bought" can get so much traction. This kind of explains it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/19 18:02:30


   
Made in ca
Zealous Sin-Eater




Montreal

 Manchu wrote:
 Polonius wrote:
Are people unclear on the distinction between having rights and being able to exercise them?
I have often wondered how the Republican rhetoric of "basic rights must be earned/bought" can get so much traction. This kind of explains it.


a) that paints me as a conservative, I don't like that. My initial reply was actually to rebuke the idea that Healthcare isn't a Right people are entitled to.
b) Law is a narrative fiction used to influence pragmatically society, and even nature. Saying that Rights must be earned means nothing else than (at least in my case) rights are nothing more than wishes until they get recognised. They can be very legitimate wishes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Polonius wrote:
Are people unclear on the distinction between having rights and being able to exercise them?

Or, more prosiacly, the difference between moral/human rights, and legal rights?

Clearly, the difference between consitutional and statutory rights is lost on this audience.


These things are very clear. The question was 'what is the foundation of a Right'. In modern society, it's the will of the Sovereign, which is by transfer the will (or consentement) of the population.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/19 18:21:40


[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.  
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
that paints me as a conservative
If anything, it paints you as a Republican -- which is hardly meaningful since you are a Canadian. But, all the same, the viewpoints you have expressed here do imply that you would be more ideologically at home among them than among the Democrats.
Kovnik Obama wrote:These things are very clear. The question was 'what is the foundation of a Right'. In modern society, it's the will of the Sovereign, which is by transfer the will (or consentement) of the population.
Again, that is merely one account and it's a poor one unless you view human rights as something besides inalienable.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/19 18:40:20


   
Made in ca
Zealous Sin-Eater




Montreal

 Manchu wrote:
Again, that is merely one account and it's a poor one unless you view human rights as something besides inalienable.


To which you prefer natural rights. That alternative hasn't exactly been fruitful in regards to human rights, and the rise of modernity correspond with it's abandon.

And the will of the Sovereign, in contractualism, is always alienable. In which case it comes back to it's source, the consent of the population. This isn't just some means of restricting the recognition of legitimate rights, as a fiction, it also takes in account the possibility of the population to reclaim the right it has passed to the Sovereign to be the arbiter of rights.

[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.  
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Natural rights theory has been very fruitful in the realm of human rights, where positivism has found little footing. Even your own "contractualist" rhetoric belies its underlying paucity. From where does the right of the population to posit further rights via some institution proceed?

   
Made in ca
Zealous Sin-Eater




Montreal

 Manchu wrote:
Natural rights theory has been very fruitful in the realm of human rights, where positivism has found little footing. Even your own "contractualist" rhetoric belies its underlying paucity. From where does the right of the population to posit further rights via some institution proceed?


Depends on which author you prefer. Both major sources (Hobbes and Locke) will refer to a natural right, self-preservation in the case of Hobbes and ownership in the case of Locke. In both cases, the institution is needed in order to avoid the unpleasantness of remaining in a natural order, war for Hobbes and scarcity for Locke.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/19 19:06:01


[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.  
   
Made in ca
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord





Grey Templar wrote:Of course people can do the same thing if you say its wrong to murder and steal because God said so, but people are more likely to follow the word of God then the word of a man.

Yeah, but He rarely speaks firectly to thine enemies, so what use is He?

Grey Templar wrote:Religious Morality is far more stable as it has a 3rd party enforcing the rules. People can't just change it on a whim, which they can do if Morality is determined by a person's individual take on morality.

Your statement assumes that God influences morality directly, which never actually seems to happen; rather it is always Man interpreting Him, and thus completely transforms your point to an untenable position.

Grey Templar wrote:People are inherently evil, anyone who says otherwise is deluded, so anything he comes up with himself is going to be inherently selfish. Which I think anyone will agree is not good for everyone else.

Evil based on what set of morals? You appear to be assuming that there is a universal morality on which 'good' and 'evil' can be judged. So pick your poison: Kantian, Utilitarian or Virtue ethics?
   
Made in ca
Zealous Sin-Eater




Montreal

 azazel the cat wrote:
Evil based on what set of morals? You appear to be assuming that there is a universal morality on which 'good' and 'evil' can be judged. So pick your poison: Kantian, Utilitarian or Virtue ethics?


I chose Virtue. Easier to justify my shortcomings when I can point at some of my excellences, and say, ''well, help me determine what sum of virtue allows me to call myself virtuous''.

[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.  
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






 Kovnik Obama wrote:
 azazel the cat wrote:
Evil based on what set of morals? You appear to be assuming that there is a universal morality on which 'good' and 'evil' can be judged. So pick your poison: Kantian, Utilitarian or Virtue ethics?


I chose Virtue. Easier to justify my shortcomings when I can point at some of my excellences, and say, ''well, help me determine what sum of virtue allows me to call myself virtuous''.


Two roads diverged in a yellow wood...

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight





Overland Park, KS

What the hell is even going on in these last few pages?

All people are inherently evil? c'mon bro, you know better than that; give me a break.

You don't need religion to be a good human being, and to help your common man.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/19 19:23:04


   
Made in ca
Zealous Sin-Eater




Montreal

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
What the hell is even going on in these last few pages?

All people are inherently evil? c'mon bro, you know better than that; give me a break.

You don't need religion to be a good human being, and to help your common man.


Where do you get this? No one has advocated this.

[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.  
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka




Kamloops, BC

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
 daedalus-templarius wrote:
What the hell is even going on in these last few pages?

All people are inherently evil? c'mon bro, you know better than that; give me a break.

You don't need religion to be a good human being, and to help your common man.


Where do you get this? No one has advocated this.


Read Grey Templar's post a few pages back, it's hilarious.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/19 19:39:08


 
   
Made in ca
Zealous Sin-Eater




Montreal

Oh sorry, I got carried over with my discussion with Manchu. ^^

[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.  
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Well, we are on point. The issue is, are these things that Romney criticizes Americans for feeling entitled to human rights?

Because I think we ought to feel entitled to human rights.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/19 19:47:11


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Manchu wrote:


Because I think we ought to feel entitled to human rights.


FREEDOM HATING SOCIALIST!1!

Just because you hate america, doesn't mean Romney should.

USA! USA! USA! USA!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/19 19:56:12


 
   
Made in ca
Zealous Sin-Eater




Montreal

 Manchu wrote:
Well, we are on point. The issue is, are these things that Romney criticizes Americans for feeling entitled to human rights?

Because I think we ought to feel entitled to human rights.


Is health a basic need? I think that asking the question is giving the answer. Should an ideal welfare government provide it's population for it's basic needs? Definitly. Is there anything that justify the U.S. not being that ideal welfare government, or at least closer to it? I don't think so. You should have more means than most other modern western country, but then I'm no economist.

[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Government entitlement is a right. That doesn't mean an individual has the right to ride it out.

Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Is health a basic need? I think that asking the question is giving the answer.
I assume you would agree that basic needs exist whether or not they are addressed. Why then is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that the right to basic needs exists regardless of whether such rights are enacted by a government?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jihadin wrote:
Government entitlement is a right. That doesn't mean an individual has the right to ride it out.
Can you re-word this?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/19 20:03:59


   
Made in ca
Zealous Sin-Eater




Montreal

 Manchu wrote:
Why then is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that the right to basic needs exists regardless of whether such rights are enacted by a government?


Because, like I said before, it's an abuse of language, which has (or can have) theoritical repercussions. Rights are recognized by those who feel entitled to them or who owns them (or owns the mean of their acheivement). In other governments then welfare, there wouldn't eve be a human category of rights.

Even the 'natural rights' mentionned by Hobbes and Locke are nothing more than imperative, either the one to preserve yourself, which underlies all logic, or the one to obtain that which is necessary to preserve yourself with Locke.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/19 20:18:02


[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Maxstreel wrote:
At the risk of offending...

All men are created equally means that all have equal opportunity, not equal rewards. That's why Civil Rights in the Sixties were so important as the equality of opportunity wasn't being presented to all races in the U.S.

It doesn't guarantee equal shares of benefits, land, money, healthcare, etc. for everyone. That's communism. And we all know how well that worked. Ask the Pre-1989 Soviet Union.



Ah... by the strict economic definitions the Soviet Union was a total Socialist state - that is, the government owned everything and saw to the distribution of things to the people, in theory giving each their fair share. Even the Soviets recognized the difference; thus the 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. A proper Communist state, no one owns anything. Everyone pools their resources, and everyone gets a fair share. It's pretty much impossible beyond the most basic tribal culture.

The reason the Soviets failed had little to do with the nature of the system and the all-too-fallable nature of greedy people in the works siphoning off a most UNfair share.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kovnik Obama wrote:
 Manchu wrote:
Why then is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that the right to basic needs exists regardless of whether such rights are enacted by a government?


Because, like I said before, it's an abuse of language, which has (or can have) theoritical repercussions. Rights are recognized by those who feel entitled to them or who owns them (or owns the mean of their acheivement). In other governments then welfare, there wouldn't eve be a human category of rights.



Like totalitarian dictatorships, feudalism, oligarchies, etc.


EDIT: The real problem with unbridled capitolism is that it really does not allow for the recognition of the value of the worker as a person, as opposed to the value of the work he does. If he can't work, unbridled capitolism kicks him to the curb and fills his spot with someone who can work. This is why regulation of capitolism is necessary; it does not recognize the existance of the value of the human, as oppoed to the worker.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/19 20:18:26


CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
 Manchu wrote:
Why then is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that the right to basic needs exists regardless of whether such rights are enacted by a government?
Because, like I said before, it's an abuse of language, which has (or can have) theoritical repercussions. Rights are recognized by those who feel entitled to them or who owns them (or owns the mean of their acheivement). In other governments then welfare, there wouldn't eve be a human category of rights.
That's nonsense. Human rights are proper to human beings, irrespective of the type of government at issue. A government cannot abolish humanity even if it does abuse humans.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/19 20:18:31


   
Made in ca
Zealous Sin-Eater




Montreal

 Manchu wrote:
 Kovnik Obama wrote:
 Manchu wrote:
Why then is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that the right to basic needs exists regardless of whether such rights are enacted by a government?
Because, like I said before, it's an abuse of language, which has (or can have) theoritical repercussions. Rights are recognized by those who feel entitled to them or who owns them (or owns the mean of their acheivement). In other governments then welfare, there wouldn't eve be a human category of rights.
That's nonsense. Human rights are proper to human beings, irrespective of the type of government at issue. A government cannot abolish humanity even if it does abuse humans.


Of course he can. You underestimate the power of narrative. The 3rd Reich (GODWYN) is a perfect example of how you can negate humanity. Man is inseparable from his historicity.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/19 20:21:50


[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.  
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

No, the Third Reich is a perfect example of how a government that denies human rights is morally illegitimate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Man is inseparable from his historicity.
While true, that has nothing to do with your positivistic point regarding human rights.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/19 20:25:55


   
Made in us
Dominar






The context of the last 100 years (heck, 20 years) leaves us with a grossly inflated estimation of the basic human condition as it has existed through the previous gazillion years.

What if, for example, food stamps were limited to flour, butter, lard, eggs, canned string beans, and raw navy beans, with an extra allowance for 1 gallon milk/week for kids under 15?

You could live indefinitely on that diet, for probably close to $15/week or $60/month. Basic human need covered, and to a greater degree than the vast majority of human existence was accustomed to (and even in current days, looking outside of the industrialized world).
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






WIC program I think is different from the Food Staps

Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

@sourclams: I know what you point is but I don't think it's relevant. The issue is not whether Romney believes Americans wrongly feel entitled to filet mignon but whether he believes they wrongly feel entitled to food.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/19 20:35:06


   
Made in ca
Zealous Sin-Eater




Montreal

 Manchu wrote:
No, the Third Reich is a perfect example of how a government that denies human rights is morally illegitimate.


That's tautological. According to your definition, human rights = legitimacy. Of course a government in which they are absent is illegitimate to you.

What's 'human' is defined socially. It's specifically because the Reich defined some as abhuman that it was capable of getting the support of such a large part of it's population. It didn't just deny human rights, it didn't even go there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Manchu wrote:
 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Man is inseparable from his historicity.
While true, that has nothing to do with your positivistic point regarding human rights.


Of course it does, there's a direct relation between the prevalence of pragmatic scientific definitions in society and social positivism.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/19 20:39:52


[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.  
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: