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.
Government is I suppose natural in the same sense that plastic is natural. I prefer to think of "natural" as "not man made". If you look in nature, you will see that anarchy is actually the "natural" order of things, and government was created by people to protect themselves against the anarchy of nature.
so Ant and/or bee Colonies with a Queen are natural? or Packs of Lions with an Alpha male are natural? or a pack of wolves with an Alpha are natural? but wait those are forms of control and such and they continue thru out a lot of nature too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/29 16:58:25
Dreadwinter wrote: If you believe minors should be able to get tattoos because it is their body, you can make the same argument that minors should be able to drink alcohol because it is their body.You are arguing for a consistent standard based on "My body, my choice." You are arguing that consistently a child should be able to get a tattoo because "my body, my choice." Same can be said for drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes. "My body, my choice."
If that's where the courts draw the line with undue burdens placed upon our individual rights by the state, then yes. People should be free to make their own choices. Are you claiming that the government is currently phsyically stopping minors from being able to gain access to alcohol and cigarettes. Every minor that desires alcohol and/or cigarettes is more than likely capable of getting them right now already. All the govenment is doing is criminalizing that choice to enable the government to punish those minors for making that choice. It's a reactive prohibition not a proactive one. Nobody, minor or adult is required to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol it's a choice freely made. The adverse effects of cigarettes and alcohol afflict adults too, yet the governmet allows cigarettes and alcohol to be produced and sold and adults to consume both. Why is it ok for an 18 year old to smoke as much as he/she wants but it's a crime for a 17 year old to do the same behavior? The US criminalizes the consumption of alcohol by anyone under the age of 21 yet the majority of Europe has no legal drinking age requirement. I guess Europe doesn't care about the health of their minors as much as the USA does?
Alcohol and cigarettes do have adverse effects on adults, but they have harsher effects on a developing body. That is what you are not understanding. Just because something harms an adult does not mean it harms a minor the same way.
European drinking laws are more cultural than ours are.
Further, you have no rights in nature, so your argument of natural rights are absurd. Rights are a completely man made concept. A bear does not care about your right to body.
Government is I suppose natural in the same sense that plastic is natural. I prefer to think of "natural" as "not man made". If you look in nature, you will see that anarchy is actually the "natural" order of things, and government was created by people to protect themselves against the anarchy of nature.
so Ant and/or bee Colonies with a Queen are natural? or Packs of Lions with an Alpha male are natural? or a pack of wolves with an Alpha are natural? but wait those are forms of control and such and they continue thru out a lot of nature too.
I suppose social structures in wildlife could be seen as a primal form of government. I'm open to that, and certainly acknowledge that the human animal had social structures before it had "government" as such, and those structures must predate our existence as a distinctive species, because they are also found in our closest relatives in nature.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/29 17:03:39
Alcohol and cigarettes do have adverse effects on adults, but they have harsher effects on a developing body. That is what you are not understanding. Just because something harms an adult does not mean it harms a minor the same way.
but that is not a guarantee either, not everyone who smokes will be effected by cigarettes and to make the claim that smoking effects everyone is wrong though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/29 17:11:56
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Prestor Jon wrote: The rights already exist the only issue is whether or not we choose to construct a society that recognizes them.
What you're describing is a nonsense. You're attempting to claim that a thing that isn't written in to law, isn't observed or even noticed by a society, is still an inherent right. What on Earth can that possibly mean, and what good can it do anyone?
Consider this instead - rights are legal protections that you win through hard work and sacrifice, that you should give up only when another important right would be impacted too greatly. And while constitutional protection can make such rights stronger and more easily protected, in and of itself even constitutional protection is not enough* - ultimately rights are defined by a society. This makes people uneasy, because a society can choose to no longer value a right that you might think is very important... but it is how it is.
*Just like your 27th amendment, Russia has a constitutional term limit on the presidency. And yet Putin has ruled since 2000, because after his second term expired he had a puppet placed in the presidency, and then claimed the presidency again after that. Because even though it was written plain as day in the constitution, Russian society didn't care and was happy for Putin to ignore that rule in practice.
Term limits aren't rights. Bloomberg did the same thing when he ran for a 3rd consecutive term as Mayor of NYC. Rights and laws aren't the same thing at all.
Legal recognition of natural rights often requires a lot of hard work and sacrifice but our handful of basic natural rights are preexisting. I'll try to concisely paraphrase Francis Hutcheson, Georg Hegel, the Stoics, Hobbes, Locke, Richard Price etc. with some examples.
You have the right to your own body and your own life, they are yours, they belong to you. These are objective truths that are not changed by ethereal concepts like laws and social norms. Your body is YOUR body, it is not MINE or anyone else's, it belongs to you alone. You have a right to your body because it is yours. I do not have a right to your body because it is not my body, I have my own body that is mine, I do not have a right to yours. For example, I might want to shave your head because I want you to be bald but I don't have a right to shave your head because that's your hair on your body, I have no right to it, you have the right to control your hair and your body. Whether we are both standing in the USA or Australia or Somalia or on a boad in international waters does not change the fact that you are the only one with the right to control your body. I may be capable of forcibly shaving your head, there may be no laws or justice system established holding jurisdiction over the area that prohibits me from shaving your head but neither of those circumstances changes the fact that I have no right to your body. Neither might nor law changes the fact that our bodies are our own and we, ourselves, alone have he right to control our bodies. A person forcibly controlling another person's body is always objectively unjust because nobody has the right to control another's body against his/her will. Nothing changes the fact that your body is your own so therefore nothing can remove your right to control it and nothing can give somebody else a right to your body without your consent.
The same applies to your right to your life. I don't have the right to murder you, I do not have a right to your life. Your life is YOURS, that is an objective truth, nothing can change the fact that your life is your own, it is not anyone else's, everyone else has their own life they don't have YOUR life. Since your life is yours, you own it, you have a right to it, it is YOURS. It does not matter where we are located, what society we live in or what legal system claims jurisdiction over us, none of that changes the objective truth that your life is your own. Therefore, since your life is yours and not mine, I do not have the right to take your life from you, it is not mine, I do not own it, I do not have the right to end it. I will never have the right to arbitrarily end your life against your will simply because I desire to end it. The unjustified ending of your life is murder and I don't have the right to destroy what is not mine. I may have the capability of murdering you, the society and legal system governing us may not prohibit or may condone me murdering you on a whim but none of that changes the fact that your lfie is your own, not mine so I have no right to claim it or take it.
Since we all have a right to our own livesand our bodies we also have the right to protect them. This inherent right to self defense allows us to defend ourselves against those that would harm/murder us against our will. If you choose to try to harm/murder me, because you want my stuff, or you don't like the way I dress or you are offended by something I said/did or because I'm a Tottenham fan, or because you're a crazy homicidal person, whatever arbitrary reason you have for murdering me I have the right to act in self preservation and protect myself from your assault on my body/life. If I am forced to harm or kill you in order to protect myself from you harming/murdering me than my actions are justifiable so in those circumstances my right to protect my body/life allows me to fight back to whatever extent is necessary to stop you from hurting/murdering me. The amount of force I am justified in using is limited to the amount needed to end your threat to my body/life and no more.
We also have the right to our own labor and to our own property/fruits of our labor. Those are our 5 natural rights: life, body, self defense, labor, property.
This is all wishful thinking. Idealism that may have laid the foundation for actual legal rights. It can be helpful in the progression of human rights to fantasize that these riots are innate, but IMO ita dangerous to do so, because if you imagine your rights are innate, you might end up imagining they are inviolable, then when the truth of the matter emerges and your legal rights are violates, you may believe that your legal rights cannot be taken away, even though in reality they can..the truth is that you have no innate rights, the state can violate them both legally and illegally. You only have those legal rights that those before you and those contemporaneous with you take the effort to establish and protect.
But to pretend for a moment that rights are innate, do you have any idea which innate rights we have that are not (yet) protected by law. Surely if what you say is true, then there are innate rights we have that are not currently recognized by the state. Be interested to know what you think those are. Or is the Bill of Rights the expression of all.of our innate rights?
I would argue the opposite. There are fundamental rights that exist beyond government because otherwise without government you have the right to do whatever you want to whomever you want. If you and I go out into international waters or into outer space it doesn't then make it ok for me to harm you or murder you or do whatever I want to you simply because there is no government/legal system holding jurisdiction over us and telling me that I can't. I don't have the right to assault you period, regardless of government.
To your point about the government being able to violate our rights, I would say that yes, that is true but that is simply the argument that Might makes Right. If we only have the rights that government gives us and government is powerful enough to do whatever it wants to us regardless of our legal rights then we essentially no rights at all even with government. The weakest and most important minority is the individual, that's why the US constitution limits the government by listing it's enumerated powers and preserves citizens' negative liberties. There are inalienable rights that individuals possess that cannot be justly usurped by government and therefore the violation of those rights is always wrong. The fact that violating your rights is wrong doesn't prevent it from happening but the fact that it happens doesn't make it acceptable either.
Personally, I think all of our naturally rights are covered by 5 rights, the right to life, the right to be secure in your own person, the right to self defense, the right to control your own labor and the right to own your personal property.
The failure of the US constitution to abolish slavery at the time it was ratified resulted in it failing to protect all of those rights because slavery is a direct violation of all our natural rights. In my opinion we've done a pretty decent job fixing that error, I think there is room for more improvement in terms of clarity and protection that could be done and I think that more government intrusion and restriction than is necessary in the constitution but overall I think it's much better than living under a monarchy, even a constitutional monarchy.
well it looks like those wanting to see Clinton charged and thinking there is some shenanigans going on with the investigation just got handed a whole bunch of cannon fodder:
now if memory serves me correct it is not kosher for the AG to be meeting with on a personal basis the husband of someone her office is investigating? I may be wrong, but this does not bode well and will hurt Clinton in the election.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Came across this from a poster on another website, and holy feth, how did I not see this? I feel pretty dumb for not seeing something so obvious.
I still absolutely believe he wants to win, there's no doubt about that to me. But talk about "hedging your bets," this could conceivably be a multi-billion dollar media empire instantly, and all of it just regurgitating what what it's viewers want to hear, without even the obligatory bait and switch.
I still can't quite really process my disgust in my fellow Americans for even entertaining the notion of electing him to the highest office in the world, but my personal respect for the man's business sense went up by quite a lot after thinking about this.
Came across this from a poster on another website, and holy feth, how did I not see this? I feel pretty dumb for not seeing something so obvious.
I still absolutely believe he wants to win, there's no doubt about that to me. But talk about "hedging your bets," this could conceivably be a multi-billion dollar media empire instantly, and all of it just regurgitating what what it's viewers want to hear, without even the obligatory bait and switch.
I still can't quite really process my disgust in my fellow Americans for even entertaining the notion of electing him to the highest office in the world, but my personal respect for the man's business sense went up by quite a lot after thinking about this.
guess you never heard of Ted Turner? or Oprah Winfrey? or the list goes on and on. and besides which its all moot anyway my previous post shows how he may have been handed the election.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/30 01:16:53
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
I still absolutely believe he wants to win, there's no doubt about that to me. But talk about "hedging your bets," this could conceivably be a multi-billion dollar media empire instantly, and all of it just regurgitating what what it's viewers want to hear, without even the obligatory bait and switch.
Everything Trump does is Brand first, everything else second.
Came across this from a poster on another website, and holy feth, how did I not see this? I feel pretty dumb for not seeing something so obvious.
I still absolutely believe he wants to win, there's no doubt about that to me. But talk about "hedging your bets," this could conceivably be a multi-billion dollar media empire instantly, and all of it just regurgitating what what it's viewers want to hear, without even the obligatory bait and switch.
I still can't quite really process my disgust in my fellow Americans for even entertaining the notion of electing him to the highest office in the world, but my personal respect for the man's business sense went up by quite a lot after thinking about this.
guess you never heard of Ted Turner? or Oprah Winfrey? or the list goes on and on. and besides which its all moot anyway my previous post shows how he may have been handed the election.
I was unaware of Oprah running for President this year, though I didn't pay that close of attention so I'm not really sure.
Probably could guess you're butthurt that I don't like Trump supporters, not butthurt that I respected his business acumen. And Hillary being moot as President will be moot when she, you know, is actually not elected President. Until then its just moops.
Asterios wrote: my previous post shows how he may have been handed the election.
Yes, Donald Trump was "handed the election" because Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch and her husband ran into each other on a tarmac in Phoenix and talked about Bill's grandchildren and golf.
Clearly your political acumen is stunning.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Asterios wrote: my previous post shows how he may have been handed the election.
Yes, Donald Trump was "handed the election" because Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch and her husband ran into each other on a tarmac in Phoenix and talked about Bill's grandchildren and golf.
Clearly your political acumen is stunning.
according to what they said, or their representatives said, evidently you do not know the American public, right now her agreeing to meet with him could mean her office is ready to charge Clinton, so she doesn't mind being seen with Bill, or if she doesn't the American voter is going to be thinking rich privilege and not vote for her, the perfect storm is coming to elect Trump its already happened and you wish to not see it, i've seen it and he will win.
Asterios wrote: my previous post shows how he may have been handed the election.
Yes, Donald Trump was "handed the election" because Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch and her husband ran into each other on a tarmac in Phoenix and talked about Bill's grandchildren and golf.
Clearly your political acumen is stunning.
There is no reason for anyone to meet with a Clinton unless there is some extreme shady business going on. Everybody knows that meeting with a Clinton means that something horrible is going down. Only an idiot would ignore the fact that a Clinton was meeting with someone, because it means that crimes were committed and that everybody involved will go to jail. It truly is the nail in the coffin for everyone involved.
Asterios wrote: my previous post shows how he may have been handed the election.
Yes, Donald Trump was "handed the election" because Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch and her husband ran into each other on a tarmac in Phoenix and talked about Bill's grandchildren and golf.
Clearly your political acumen is stunning.
There is no reason for anyone to meet with a Clinton unless there is some extreme shady business going on. Everybody knows that meeting with a Clinton means that something horrible is going down. Only an idiot would ignore the fact that a Clinton was meeting with someone, because it means that crimes were committed and that everybody involved will go to jail. It truly is the nail in the coffin for everyone involved.
you forgot the part where her department is investigating Clinton.
so nice try trying to evade the truth.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
The truth is that they or their representatives probably said that there was a good reason that they were hanging out together. But right now Trump agreeing with them could mean that they paid him to run in the Republican primary so that he can say a bunch of racist stupid stuff that people will eat up like candy so that she can win the election. His Jewish money man said that it was a good deal, so here we are.
Asterios wrote: according to what they said, or their representatives said, evidently you do not know the American public, right now her agreeing to meet with him could mean her office is ready to charge Clinton, so she doesn't mind being seen with Bill, or if she doesn't the American voter is going to be thinking rich privilege and not vote for her, the perfect storm is coming to elect Trump its already happened and you wish to not see it, i've seen it and he will win..
Again, yet another deft display of your political acumen.
And apparently your clairvoyance, since you already know the outcome of the election that hasn't happened yet. Simply stunning.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Asterios wrote: according to what they said, or their representatives said, evidently you do not know the American public, right now her agreeing to meet with him could mean her office is ready to charge Clinton, so she doesn't mind being seen with Bill, or if she doesn't the American voter is going to be thinking rich privilege and not vote for her, the perfect storm is coming to elect Trump its already happened and you wish to not see it, i've seen it and he will win..
Again, yet another deft display of your political acumen.
And apparently your clairvoyance, since you already know the outcome of the election that hasn't happened yet. Simply stunning.
Isn't clinton winning by a "uuge" margin right now? Like public mandate margins?
Quote from chromedog
and 40k was like McDonalds - you could get it anywhere - it wouldn't necessarily satisfy, but it was probably better than nothing.
Dreadwinter wrote: Remember, he doesn't agree with Trump. But he is voting for him.... because.... reasons.
Keep on smoking buddy! Your logic in this thread lately is just amazing.
Hey now, these are clearly alcohol related posts, if they are indeed non-sober. Don't denigrate cannabis users; their flaky logic tends to flake differently.
Asterios wrote: would you like to make a little wager on that?
say like loser has to leave this site forever? you for Clinton, me for Trump?
It is tempting to take you up on that offer because it would mean your constant gak-posting, thread-ruining nonsense, and troll topic spamming would cease, but if I were to make a list of all the things there are to worry about in my life, an unenforceable wager with some clown on a forum ranks more or less on the bottom.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Asterios wrote: would you like to make a little wager on that?
say like loser has to leave this site forever? you for Clinton, me for Trump?
It is tempting to take you up on that offer because it would mean your constant gak-posting, thread-ruining nonsense, and troll topic spamming would cease, but if I were to make a list of all the things there are to worry about in my life, an unenforceable wager with some clown on a forum ranks more or less on the bottom.
in other words you are scared too then? we could always get the Mods to enforce it?
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Asterios wrote: in other words you are scared too then? we could always get the Mods to enforce it?
Yeah, that's it guy. I'm too scared to make a stupid wager with some clown in the Dakka OT.
Goodness, you're just adorable.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Asterios wrote: would you like to make a little wager on that?
say like loser has to leave this site forever? you for Clinton, me for Trump?
It is tempting to take you up on that offer because it would mean your constant gak-posting, thread-ruining nonsense, and troll topic spamming would cease, but if I were to make a list of all the things there are to worry about in my life, an unenforceable wager with some clown on a forum ranks more or less on the bottom.
in other words you are scared too then? we could always get the Mods to enforce it?
Scooty correct me if I'm overstepping, but I feel like this should be your response:
Asterios wrote: in other words you are scared too then? we could always get the Mods to enforce it?
Yeah, that's it guy. I'm too scared to make a stupid wager with some clown in the Dakka OT.
Goodness, you're just adorable.
but if you are so sure, then you shouldn't worry then, in fact if you are that certain it wouldn't even be a wager then for you. you are certain Trump will lose right?
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
jmurph wrote: New poll- Trump and Clinton neck and neck.
There are polls almost daily. The thing you have to remember is that most have a natural bias, and all of them have significant margins of error. As such if you just look at isolated polls here and there you'll find some really exciting results, as well as polls giving a neck and neck result there's also been polls showing Clinton with a double digits lead.
This is why it's important to look at poll aggregates. Until 538 gets their model up and running we have to make do with things like real clear politics. The aggregate there is showing Clinton up by an average of 6 points. It's hardly a decisive lead (bigger leads at this point in the campaign have been lost plenty of times in past elections), but what's also telling is the trend - polls were genuinely neck and neck a month ago, and since then it's been trending to Clinton very strongly.
EDIT - and sure enough the 538 model is up as of today. It gives Trump 20%, and shows Clinton up in an aggregate of national polls by 7%. The 20% chance is basically because we're a long way from the election which gives Trump a chance of improving his polling position.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/30 03:24:15
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
