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.

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

No, you are really off the tracks. I am talking about moral legitimacy. Respecting human rights is a matter of morality. To the considerable extent that the Third Reich failed to respect human rights -- rights which precede it and every other government -- it is morally illegitimate.

Kovnik Obama wrote:there's a direct relation between the prevalence of pragmatic scientific definitions in society and social positivism.

And what is the relationship between such a correlation and historicity as a phenomenon -- and between the phenomenon of historicity and the concept of human rights? I believe your technical vocabulary exceeds your articulacy.

Well, since we've hit the point where you feel obligated to insult me, I think it's an happy coincidence that I'm off work and thus no longer have a valid excuse to remain on Dakka.

 Manchu wrote:
@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.

Disagree. The 'cut spending' camp has no problem with some entitlement spending. The issue is the extent to which entitlements have grown and will continue to grow. Spending cuts is essentially an argument for imposition of austerity.

You could, like I pointed out, cut food stamps to an ample amount of basic staples and cut food stamps spending by 80% or increasing its coverage 5x, both reducing spending and covering all basic human needs/rights. The lack of degree of austerity is exactly what entitlements are ultimately about.

@Kovnik Obama: I don't think you are being clear. In fact, I think you are purposely being unclear and evasive. You cannot be anymore offended by the accusation than I am by the poor argumentation I accuse you of.

You understand that humans have basic needs. You refuse to say humans have rights to those basic needs except that a government agrees to provide them. I respond that human rights arise from basic human needs and just like those needs exist independently from government action or inaction. Your retort is a stand-alone reference to historicity and an alleged correlation between pragmatic scientific definitions and social positivism as if these things are self-evidently relevant.

I agree, it is indeed a happy coincidence that takes you away from this discussion.

 Manchu wrote:

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?

Here's my take...

No one denies that there are some people who need to be “in the cart”, so to speak – the very old, the disabled, the outcasts, the dying. Some people just aren’t going to be contributors, either at this particular point in their lives or, in the case of the very disabled, ever.

But it is ridiculous to suggest that 47% of the country is unable to contribute a single dime to federal income taxes (not talking about all taxes, just the federal). At this point, half the people are in the cart, and the other half the people are pulling the cart. That’s not sustainable...

Mitt Romney realize that... heck ALL politicians realize that... hence his inelegant comment at a FUNDRAISER.

I find the hysteria over this comment ridiculous...

Just like the right's hysteria to the "I believe in redistribution of wealth" that Obama said years ago...

Well.. duh! That's nothing new... we already knew that.

 sourclams wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@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.

Disagree.

Mitt Romney wrote:There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.

My italics/bolding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I find the hysteria over this comment ridiculous...

Should or should not Americans feel entitled to food?

What, so you're basing your entire argument off of a one-liner? Didn't realize that was the case.

Has Romney said anywhere (has anyone except Ron Paul said anywhere) that he intends to cut all spending to 0? No, of course not. The point being made is not an attack against people who have no food, it's an attack against entitlement.

So you think he is right to criticize Americans for feeling entitled to food?

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
. Compare Perot (you remember the guy who gave the Presidency to Clinton).

See, talk like that is just stupid.

Clinton became president because he earned the most votes out of the three.

OF THE THREE.

So what's your point, that people voting for who they want is bad and that only the two self approved parties should be allowed to run?

Strange position coming from you.

He's talking entitlements as a whole

@d-usa: His point is obviously that the votes Ross Perot got would have otherwise gone to George Bush.

 Manchu wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I find the hysteria over this comment ridiculous...

Should or should not Americans feel entitled to food?

In *my* opinion... no. I don't believe everyone is "entitled" to food.

Does that mean I want people to starve? No.. as I regularly donate food throughout the year (especially during Thanksgiving/Christmas).

Do I feel that government assist the poor for food? Yeah, no prob with that.

But "entitlement" is too strong as it implies fundemental rights... unless, I'm getting my definition mixed up?

 Jihadin wrote:
He's talking entitlements as a whole

It seems to me he's being specific. Do you agree with Mitt Romney that Americans are wrong to feel entitled to food?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
But "entitlement" is too strong as it implies fundemental rights... unless, I'm getting my definition mixed up?

No, I think you have it sorted out. To make sure, let me ask a question:

Do you believe that human beings have a fundamental right to food?

Implicit in all of that statement was 'to this ever-increasing degree'. Nobody on the fiscal Right actually thinks entitlement spending to be zero. If that's what you feel Romney's statement reveals, then naturally this is going to be a very shallow discussion.

I ask you this question: I give you 1/4 of the typical Food Stamps allotment ($60/month) on the assumption that you buy only wheat flour, eggs, butter, lard, canned string beans, and raw navy beans.

Have I not met your basic need for food?

 Manchu wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
But "entitlement" is too strong as it implies fundemental rights... unless, I'm getting my definition mixed up?

No, I think you have it sorted out. To make sure, let me ask a question:

Do you believe that human beings have a fundamental right to food?

I feel like we're in some sort of verbal jujitsu here...

What do you really mean be "Fundamental Right"? What is that really? I'm not trying to be obtuse here.

 sourclams wrote:
Have I not met your basic need for food?

Yes and as I already pointed out Romney is not criticizing entitlement to filet mignon but to food itself, regardless of what he will actually be able to achieve regarding spending cuts should he be elected. If Mitt Romney is elected president, he will not be able to cut all government spending regarding food stamps. The point is that it is not commensurate with respect for basic human rights to vote for a man who believes people should not feel entitled to food. If you disagree, even assuming you would only provide the barest minimum of government spending regarding food, then I would advise you not to vote for Mitt Romney.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
What do you really mean be "Fundamental Right"? What is that really? I'm not trying to be obtuse here.

I mean "human right," a thing that every human person and all human institutions owe to every human person by virtue of our humanity. I adopted your word "fundamental" but what I basically mean is inalienable -- no one can take it away, no one has the authority to grant it, it simply is. No tricks.

Do you believe there is a human right to food?

Sure, people have the right to food. Its not the government's, or anybody elses, job to make sure that right is exercised.

You have the right to work and buy food. Nobody is going to stop you here.

If you can't find a job thats not anybody elses problem but yours.


People are also free to help the poor, and thats something that some organizations and people do. The government should not be one of those organizations. They can do it if they have the ability, but it should be low on the priority list. And among the first things that get cut if money is low.

The government's priorities should be as follows,

1) National Defense(including public security and law enforcement)

2) Public utilities and services(education, fire departments, road repair, etc...)

3) Research and Development(grants to businesses and individuals that are investigating worthwhile technological improvements)

4) Welfare of all types


If there isn't enough money for 1, 2, 3, and 4. Money gets taken away from 4 till there isn't any left.

If there isn't enough money for 1, 2, and 3. Money gets taken away from 3 till there isn't any left.

If there isn't enough money for 1 and 2. money gets taken away from 2 until there isn't any left.

If there isn't enough money for 1, we're no longer solvent as a country.

 Manchu wrote:
Yes and as I already pointed out Romney is not criticizing entitlement to filet mignon but to food itself, regardless of what he will actually be able to achieve regarding spending cuts should he be elected.

If you are really reading so deeply into a one-lline statement while judging so superficially the man's personal and public platform, then it's little wonder this argument hasn't progressed.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, people have the right to food. Its not the government's, or anybody elses, job to make sure that right is exercised.

A government is morally illegitimate to the extent that it does not provide for the human rights of the people under its control.

It seems to me that all you are basically saying is that people have the right to whatever they are rich/strong/lucky enough to grab.

 Manchu wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
What do you really mean be "Fundamental Right"? What is that really? I'm not trying to be obtuse here.

I mean "human right," a thing that every human person and all human institutions owe to every human person by virtue of our humanity. I adopted your word "fundamental" but what I basically mean is inalienable -- no one can take it away, no one has the authority to grant it, it simply is. No tricks.

Do you believe there is a human right to food?

Ah... I see now.

The answer is "no". Does that make me evil?

Wars has been (and will be) fought over food/resources... that's human nature.

With respect to a possible Pres. Romney... he can't cut those benefits... no President can... because, it's a spending directive from Congress.

 sourclams wrote:
If you are really reading so deeply into a one-lline statement while judging so superficially the man's personal and public platform, then it's little wonder this argument hasn't progressed.

I believe that these remarks accurately reflect Mitt Romney's personal and public platform because they are extremely candid having been delivered in the expectation of privacy with his most ardent supporters.

 whembly wrote:
The answer is "no". Does that make me evil?

I don't know that it makes you evil but it is certainly an evil position.

 Manchu wrote:
@d-usa: His point is obviously that the votes Ross Perot got would have otherwise gone to George Bush.

Which is a stupid argument against voter choice on the ballot: "My guy will loose if we give actual options to voters."

Nothing changes the fact that Perot didn't give the election to anybody or steal the election from anybody. Bush didn't earn enough votes, and Clinton earned enough.

Frazzled has admitted to voting third party before though, so it's just funny to watch him try to blame a third party candidate for a Bush loss.

 Manchu wrote:
Again, my theory is that he didn't need to more accurately anticipate the audience. It doesn't matter that people who oppose him are confirmed in their opinions unless it motivates them to actually vote. On balance, I'd say this kind of rhetoric mobilizes more support than opposition because while it's not surprising to Democrats it is reassuring to Republicans, especially the ones who sign big checks.

I would say that its polarizing in that it has roughly the same, but inverse, effect on confirmed supporters and confirmed opponents. However the rhetoric employed here is like poison to large groups of the population in places that Romney needs to win in order to win this election: Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

What can I say dogma? I hope you are right and I am wrong.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The answer is "no". Does that make me evil?

I don't know that it makes you evil but it is certainly an evil position.

I'm curious... why is that an evil position?

If its a true inalienable rights, the government needs to be empowered to enforce it. In practical terms, how do you do that?

We already have enough social safety nets (and charity) to ensure folks have food... so, aren't we a generous nation already?

 Frazzled wrote:

Republicans win when they go epic.

Since when? The last Republican to win with transformational rhetoric was Reagan and he the first to do so in a very long time.

 Frazzled wrote:

Romeny's a moderate. He ran as a moderate, nad has just been painted wacky right to win the nomination and by the willing MsM.

And the fact that his party has seen a resurgence of "wacky right" in the last few years, and Mittford has a tendency to sloppily play to the majority of his party's support.

 dogma wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Again, my theory is that he didn't need to more accurately anticipate the audience. It doesn't matter that people who oppose him are confirmed in their opinions unless it motivates them to actually vote. On balance, I'd say this kind of rhetoric mobilizes more support than opposition because while it's not surprising to Democrats it is reassuring to Republicans, especially the ones who sign big checks.

I would say that its polarizing in that it has roughly the same, but inverse, effect on confirmed supporters and confirmed opponents. However the rhetoric employed here is like poison to large groups of the population in places that Romney needs to win in order to win this election: Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

ah... good point.

Like I said earlier, this'll hurt Romney...

The news about Obama saying "I believe in wealth redistribution"... not so much.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Rights are a funny thing. You have to be given them.

You are the first conservative I've ever seen admit that.

Denying that there is a human right to food is not really evil in and of itself, just as with any statement that could potentially be made from error alone, but holding the position so that you may deny people food is evil. The justification of evil is also evil.

 whembly wrote:
If its a true inalienable rights, the government needs to be empowered to enforce it. In practical terms, how do you do that?

It can and has been done in many ways. I'm not sure what you mean, to be honest.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Rights are a funny thing. You have to be given them.

You are the first conservative I've ever seen admit that.

Well... "rights" have to be "defined" for the masses... then, defended.

If you don't have it defined... how can you defend it?