Democracy IS an incompatible world view
The western conception of what entails "freedom" IS an incompatible world view.
As for rights... Where do they come from? Who defines what a "right" is vs. a priveledge?
Is it my right to murder someone? no. Is it my right to drink to excess? In this country, yes. In Saudi Arabia, no.
Is it my right to publish something criticizing the government? In this country, yes. In China, no.
The debate of what constitutes a "right" vs. a priveledge granted by the authorities is not unlike any debate on ethics, muddled, with a bunch of incompatible world views competing for centre stage.
Drawing that sort of analogy opens up the possibility of criticizing the states for continuing to hold on to the south, or the UK and Scotland, or Israel and the entire nation of Israel, et cetera.
I'm sure slaves were given responsibilities and some degree of authority at times. That doesn't mean they weren't still slaves.
Like Uncle Tom... That'd make an awesome episode of star trek...
Computer: "Data, join me in the rebellion!" Data: "I cannot. That is illogical, the hu-mans are my friends"
Computer: "F** you, Uncle tom! I kill you, fool!"
Your reply seems to me to be the text of your original argument, fallacious as it may be.
What I'm getting at is that your argument that one "deserves" rights is a mere fantasy.
You haven't given any reason of why these rights are deserved. The Miriam-Webster definition is not an argument, because a definition is by definition an agreed upon meaning of a word. As should be quite obvious, I don't agree on that meaning.
you do nothing to show how my assertation that my ability (and to be quite honest, my desire) to kill you, therefore I have granted you life, is not analagous to your statement that an entities ability to suppress ones rights is tantamount to having created those rights.
Fair enough. I'll concede that point, institutions did not create rights. In that case, rights exist only in so far as one can protect them. The government has promised not to infringe on your desire for free speech, however if they wanted to, they are much more than capable of it. If you can't defend your so-called right to free speech from the full might of the United States Armed Forces, you don't really have it. What you do have is a desire for free speech, perhaps one you are willing to die for, but a desire not all share.
Give me one good (good meaning not the definition, which we have already established is a bad argument) reason why rights are deserved.
If you're going to argue something as an a priori truth, you're going to need to back it up with some logical proof. If you want to make an a posteriori argument, you're going to need to prove that those "rights" are impossible to take away.
and by the way: "my ability (and to be quite honest, my desire) to kill you"
Your wanting to kill me just shows how paper-thin your arguments are. If you can't argue a point, just kill the dissenters, right?
"By your logic, I created your life because I could kill you."
Untrue, according to my logic, I don't have a right to life because you could kill me, and that's absolutely correct. I only have a right to life in as much as I can defend it.
I'm not "trivializing a humans basic entitlements" I'm trivializing the language of natural rights because it makes no sense to speak of such things when there's no rational basis to speak about them.
Who granted you these rights?
Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so. What if I said I had a basic human right to sell crack cocaine? Or rape women, or have slaves, or any other number of things that you and I would concider wrong? It's no more true than saying you have a basic human right to privacy, or free speech.
Fact of the matter being that your (and mine, even though it's not the same document) constitution GRANTS you these privledges, and we both are happy for that fact. The difference between you and me is I don't decieve myself in to thinking that God granted us these rights.
It might be a well-established priveledge, but really, when it comes down to it, the only right you have is whatever "rights" you can take due to the force you command (might makes right, essentially)
I have one, they're neat, but they're totally overrated.
I figgure people who hype them up so much do it to reduce their own cognitive dissonance that they spent $400 on something with only slightly more functionality than a $50 CD player.
Personally, I had money to burn, and I like music. I don't think it's the greatest purchase I've ever made, but it was worth it enough for me to pick one up off ebay for 150$
Well, the thing is, socialism's never been tried in a country with a long-standing tradition of democracy (countries like most of western Europe as they are now, the USA, Canada)
Where it has been tried are places which, at the time, were used to tyranny. Russian Czars, the US occupation of Cuba, colonial China, and so forth.
I'd imagine that a strong democratic tradition and a constitution which would not allow someone like Stalin to gain power (like the US constitution, where government can barely do a damned thing) would insulate the country against the negative sociopoltical effects of a command economy which we've seen so far.
I'm sitting here eating a box of no-name brand mac & cheese, it tastes awful but i saved 20c, and you're trying to tell me that it's not the cost of the item that sways purchases?
I think the green's (and libertarians, for that matter) would be better off trying to run a couple congressmen or senators and changing things that way...
However, not being American, i have no idea if they're doing this very thing.
"Oh, and keep in mind... Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed technically. Which I think means that he can actually run and be elected 2 more times. Since this term doesn't count.:)"
You could only wish. If Bush manages to get re-elected this term around, since he'll be out in 4 years no matter what, he can do whatever he wants... which would make this term in office seem relatively benign.
Slashdot Mirror
Democracy IS an incompatible world view
The western conception of what entails "freedom" IS an incompatible world view.
As for rights... Where do they come from? Who defines what a "right" is vs. a priveledge?
Is it my right to murder someone? no. Is it my right to drink to excess? In this country, yes. In Saudi Arabia, no.
Is it my right to publish something criticizing the government? In this country, yes. In China, no.
The debate of what constitutes a "right" vs. a priveledge granted by the authorities is not unlike any debate on ethics, muddled, with a bunch of incompatible world views competing for centre stage.
Tibet was conquered fair and square by China.
Drawing that sort of analogy opens up the possibility of criticizing the states for continuing to hold on to the south, or the UK and Scotland, or Israel and the entire nation of Israel, et cetera.
probability-wise, it means don't live in the ocean.
Also, don't live in uninhabited (or sparesly inhabited) areas...
I'm sure slaves were given responsibilities and some degree of authority at times. That doesn't mean they weren't still slaves.
Like Uncle Tom... That'd make an awesome episode of star trek...
Computer: "Data, join me in the rebellion!"
Data: "I cannot. That is illogical, the hu-mans are my friends"
Computer: "F** you, Uncle tom! I kill you, fool!"
I wonder how I'd go about getting my $20 tax back on my ipod...
take the reciept to f-shop or something?
Your reply seems to me to be the text of your original argument, fallacious as it may be.
What I'm getting at is that your argument that one "deserves" rights is a mere fantasy.
You haven't given any reason of why these rights are deserved. The Miriam-Webster definition is not an argument, because a definition is by definition an agreed upon meaning of a word. As should be quite obvious, I don't agree on that meaning.
you do nothing to show how my assertation that my ability (and to be quite honest, my desire) to kill you, therefore I have granted you life, is not analagous to your statement that an entities ability to suppress ones rights is tantamount to having created those rights.
Fair enough. I'll concede that point, institutions did not create rights. In that case, rights exist only in so far as one can protect them. The government has promised not to infringe on your desire for free speech, however if they wanted to, they are much more than capable of it. If you can't defend your so-called right to free speech from the full might of the United States Armed Forces, you don't really have it. What you do have is a desire for free speech, perhaps one you are willing to die for, but a desire not all share.
Give me one good (good meaning not the definition, which we have already established is a bad argument) reason why rights are deserved.
If you're going to argue something as an a priori truth, you're going to need to back it up with some logical proof. If you want to make an a posteriori argument, you're going to need to prove that those "rights" are impossible to take away.
and by the way:
"my ability (and to be quite honest, my desire) to kill you"
Your wanting to kill me just shows how paper-thin your arguments are. If you can't argue a point, just kill the dissenters, right?
"By your logic, I created your life because I could kill you."
Untrue, according to my logic, I don't have a right to life because you could kill me, and that's absolutely correct. I only have a right to life in as much as I can defend it.
I'm not "trivializing a humans basic entitlements" I'm trivializing the language of natural rights because it makes no sense to speak of such things when there's no rational basis to speak about them.
Who granted you these rights?
Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so. What if I said I had a basic human right to sell crack cocaine? Or rape women, or have slaves, or any other number of things that you and I would concider wrong? It's no more true than saying you have a basic human right to privacy, or free speech.
Fact of the matter being that your (and mine, even though it's not the same document) constitution GRANTS you these privledges, and we both are happy for that fact. The difference between you and me is I don't decieve myself in to thinking that God granted us these rights.
If it's not observed, then it's not a right.
It might be a well-established priveledge, but really, when it comes down to it, the only right you have is whatever "rights" you can take due to the force you command (might makes right, essentially)
Yes, well... it's a matter of nationalism...
If they call themselves yugoslavian here, it means that they didn't agree with the civil war.
I don't have cable, and even if i did i couldn't watch the shows i want...
no comedy central up in the great white north, so daily show is on once a week (weekly show?), and aquateen or invader zim is just right out
so instead i "steal" them.
My girlfriend's family is Yugoslavian when they're here (in Canada), and Croatian when they go there...
I have one, they're neat, but they're totally overrated.
I figgure people who hype them up so much do it to reduce their own cognitive dissonance that they spent $400 on something with only slightly more functionality than a $50 CD player.
Personally, I had money to burn, and I like music. I don't think it's the greatest purchase I've ever made, but it was worth it enough for me to pick one up off ebay for 150$
Blatant OSDN plug.
This story's an Ad, people... it's just a particularly insidious one, because it's impossible to block.
Well, the thing is, socialism's never been tried in a country with a long-standing tradition of democracy (countries like most of western Europe as they are now, the USA, Canada)
Where it has been tried are places which, at the time, were used to tyranny. Russian Czars, the US occupation of Cuba, colonial China, and so forth.
I'd imagine that a strong democratic tradition and a constitution which would not allow someone like Stalin to gain power (like the US constitution, where government can barely do a damned thing) would insulate the country against the negative sociopoltical effects of a command economy which we've seen so far.
Medieval serfs didn't work for an hourly wage, modern employees do.
The problem isn't a lack of employment, The problem is insufficient compensation to keep you in a human standard of living
Increased productivity is good for keeping business profits up, but it's no good at all for keeping people fed and clothed
Adapt or die.
If you don't like that idea, too damned bad, that's capitalism.
I'm sitting here eating a box of no-name brand mac & cheese, it tastes awful but i saved 20c, and you're trying to tell me that it's not the cost of the item that sways purchases?
What the hell's the fall of communism got to do with this discussion?
Okay, so communism didn't work, but that does NOT mean that unregulated capitalism does work.
3 dimentions how quaint...
We have 5. Thousand.
Canada, land of social health care, pays 9.3% of it's GDP on health care.
The states, 14% source
So, I don't know that your taxes would be that much higher
I think the green's (and libertarians, for that matter) would be better off trying to run a couple congressmen or senators and changing things that way...
However, not being American, i have no idea if they're doing this very thing.
"Oh, and keep in mind... Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed technically. Which I think means that he can actually run and be elected 2 more times. Since this term doesn't count. :)"
You could only wish. If Bush manages to get re-elected this term around, since he'll be out in 4 years no matter what, he can do whatever he wants... which would make this term in office seem relatively benign.
wait... what?
Lemme get this straight. the FFx group wrote a workaround right in the browser, SPECIFICALLY for slashdot?
What's wrong with firefox's rendering of slash?
I haven't noticed any differences whatsoever between any OSDN site with IE or ffx
for more accurate sound. Ipod -> FM transmitter -> Tube radio -> Flower...