Have you ever worked in retail? You encounter a lot of old people - both as colleagues and as customers. Some seniors indeed work so that they can eat a little better. Or to keep an old house that they can't afford on their fixed income. Or simply for companionship or to kill the boredom of having nothing to do all day. If you are 80 and able to hold down a warehouse job, then you are doing pretty darned good. There are a lot of 20-somethings that can't hold down a job due to health or addiction issues. I'm doing what I can to stave that off - we've been in my house for 8 years and we still haven't completely furnished it, because we put so much into our retirement accounts. But a single health emergency could easily drain those accounts - I get that. I'd love everyone to enjoy a bountiful retirement, but I also recognize that "retirement" is a thoroughly modern concept and we're very lucky if we can enjoy it.
but ultimately all the Star Wars gadgetry in the world wasn't enough to police Iraq's basic infrastructure
We were an interloper hated by all sides. We also were limited in tactics by the Geneva convention. Saddam held the country in check for decades using a military several notches below the one that the US invaded Iraq with (twice!). US military action within the US would be more analogous to either our own civil war (doubtful, that was regional) or a dictatorship situation.
look incapable of simple deductive reasoning.
Funny, I'd reflect that back at you for sticking to a thoroughly defeated and abandoned concept. When you have a large, well trained standing army, a civilian uprising can succeed, as in Egypt - but only if the military decides to sit it out. If the military decides to weigh in, your massive stockpile of handguns will be almost useless. If I was dictator and had control over the military, I'd simply give them orders for summary execution for possession of a handgun along with rewards for turning them in and watch them disappear as a threat in a few weeks. Australia was able to pull this off in a totally peaceful, democratic environment - it would be child's play for the military in a state of emergency.
Well, I said vigor and the description seems to indicate vigor. Obviously I said "vigor" in my post, so yeah - vigor. Don't apply my comment to any situation you imagine just to demonize me.
In perfect libertarian nirvana, you would use your ability to sue people for impacting your land. This, IMHO, is the weakest part of libertarian ideology. It's completely unrealistic to expect every individual to track down the source of every pollutant and then prove to the majority of a jury that the defendant cause harm. Especially when - for reasons that I don't understand - libertarians are often also fairly supportive of corporate entities and even limited liability(!!!). This is without things that pay little attention to our notions of individuality (like epidemiology and the way vaccinations need to be social to be effective). So yeah, I tend to depart with most libertarians on property as the bedrock of individualism...
It's not that I lack empathy. I've been truly very lucky with my life. I have a terrific family and we all have our health. I also have clear eyes about the future - everyone eventually loses their health. Most eventually fall on hard luck.
I was simply amused by comparisons to times when people had to roam around the forest looking for food, often at a subsistence level. Here's a guy who still has his health and is still able to make a living - it's hardly the same thing. The whole conversation is funny (to me) for its absurdity. That's all.
I'm sorry, but an 80-year-old man who still has enough vigor to work in a warehouse retiring too early and running out of money is pretty far down the list on major tragedies in the human timeline.
The concept behind the Second Amendment was discredited and abandoned a long time ago. The founding fathers had a deep distrust of a standing army, and so the theory went that a well-regulated militia could instead serve to defend the nation. After a series of failures of militias to various crises, within a couple of decades there was a large standing army. Now the US military is so large and so heavily armed and trained that the sole remaining provision (the right to bear arms) is superficial at best. The Second Amendment isn't going anywhere, but as a bulwark against government it is a complete failure.
Zoning laws in general are very problematic if you take a view of property as an inalienable right (or an inevitable consequence of other inalienable rights). A lot (the vast majority?) of libertarians take this viewpoint, but I've never been able to follow them. I think you can have a society that is quite respectful of individual rights while also having alternate ownership models. Property tax makes any claim of real "ownership" somewhat specious in any event - what is this if not rent? And a shitty form of rent, too - with no formal lease, and all the power to change the terms on one side.
Is this just going to be an unceasing torrent of attempts to stuff words into my mouth? Can we agree that slavery is bad and then move on to the next straw man?
your right to kill someone who is preventing you from dipping your cup into a lake when no other water source exists.
Or, you know, sue them.
I understood the argument perfectly - the author that I was responding to was invoking human rights in a dispute that has nothing to do with human rights. This is a case of a company receiving a subsidy, not people dying of thirst. You have to get pretty creative or have a very dire situation to tie water access to inalienable rights, and that point irked me. Maybe I'm being "dickish" by insisting on reserving words like "rights" for actual rights - but it's even more dickish to resort to name-calling.
For example, if life is an inalienable right, then food and water must be (else, no life).
Only if someone is actively depriving you of those things. Inalienable rights cannot be granted - you are born with them. You are not born with clean water - that is something that someone needs to take action to secure. Thus, not an inalienable right. If on the other hand someone is actively working to thwart your access to potable water, that is indeed an infringement on your right to life.
I am forbidden to grow crops on my own land here in suburbia.
Crops as a commercial enterprise or crops for personal use (most people would say a garden)? If the latter, that is a pretty strange restriction and I'd say does cross a line. I'm fairly libertarian-leaning - but I depart with many libertarians on property rights... it does indeed get complicated!
I don't know why you think I advocate commoditization. Air is available everywhere on earth. Potable water is not. If someone screws with the air, that is indeed a violation of your rights. If someone pollutes the water, that is indeed a violation of your rights.
Ah, so now we have gone from discussing what is and isn't an inherent right to differing interpretations of some UN document. I think that qualifies as a tangent.
An inherent right is something that you are born with. You can only be deprived of them. I have no problems saying that people who live in reasonable places should have a right to clean water - I just want to make it clear that this is a right that we are, as a society, choosing to grant and not something they are naturally born with.
It's illegal to collect "your" rainwater because that deprives people with the downstream "rights". Water "rights" are a very complicated subject, indeed. But it's well-worn legal territory.
But that's a tangent. Of course you have a right to "get" water - that's a natural extension of the right to life. But that is YOU taking an action, not someone else. The moment your "right" demands action from someone else, it ceases to be a fundamental right as it now infringes on someone else's fundamental right.
"Reality" can't violate rights - only people. I never mentioned property - I just bristle at the notion that people could think that you have a "right" to water that is somehow fundamental... like you were born with water and people are taking it away from you. We can use the government to give people anything we want, and we can even call it a "right" if we want - but I want to make sure that we make a distinction because I think the concept of inalienable rights is very important.
My birth is what endowed me with my inalienable rights. Same with yours. And it's not "my claim" - inalienable rights underpin most of the concepts of Western civilization. The entire founding of the US is based upon it, as is the Constitution.
The right to life does not mean that people bear a responsibility to keep you alive, "dumbshit". It means they can not deprive you of life. Why did you resort to name calling?
You're splitting hairs. Intrinsic rights don't exist; all rights are entitlements.
Intrinsic rights don't violate anyone else's rights. You have a right to your life, you have a life to do whatever you want, you have a right to make your situation better by your own standard. Only when these rights butt up against someone else's do you have a conflict. You are born with these rights, and they form the basis for modern civilization.
Granted rights by definition require a stable government and have no limits, really. That's not splitting hairs - that's a major conceptual difference.
anywhere sufficient infrastructure exists to provide it affordably.
That's a pretty major caveat! Who would disagree with that?
Slashdot Mirror
It might be me at some point in my life.
Have you ever worked in retail? You encounter a lot of old people - both as colleagues and as customers. Some seniors indeed work so that they can eat a little better. Or to keep an old house that they can't afford on their fixed income. Or simply for companionship or to kill the boredom of having nothing to do all day. If you are 80 and able to hold down a warehouse job, then you are doing pretty darned good. There are a lot of 20-somethings that can't hold down a job due to health or addiction issues. I'm doing what I can to stave that off - we've been in my house for 8 years and we still haven't completely furnished it, because we put so much into our retirement accounts. But a single health emergency could easily drain those accounts - I get that. I'd love everyone to enjoy a bountiful retirement, but I also recognize that "retirement" is a thoroughly modern concept and we're very lucky if we can enjoy it.
but ultimately all the Star Wars gadgetry in the world wasn't enough to police Iraq's basic infrastructure
We were an interloper hated by all sides. We also were limited in tactics by the Geneva convention. Saddam held the country in check for decades using a military several notches below the one that the US invaded Iraq with (twice!). US military action within the US would be more analogous to either our own civil war (doubtful, that was regional) or a dictatorship situation.
look incapable of simple deductive reasoning.
Funny, I'd reflect that back at you for sticking to a thoroughly defeated and abandoned concept. When you have a large, well trained standing army, a civilian uprising can succeed, as in Egypt - but only if the military decides to sit it out. If the military decides to weigh in, your massive stockpile of handguns will be almost useless. If I was dictator and had control over the military, I'd simply give them orders for summary execution for possession of a handgun along with rewards for turning them in and watch them disappear as a threat in a few weeks. Australia was able to pull this off in a totally peaceful, democratic environment - it would be child's play for the military in a state of emergency.
Well, I said vigor and the description seems to indicate vigor. Obviously I said "vigor" in my post, so yeah - vigor. Don't apply my comment to any situation you imagine just to demonize me.
In perfect libertarian nirvana, you would use your ability to sue people for impacting your land. This, IMHO, is the weakest part of libertarian ideology. It's completely unrealistic to expect every individual to track down the source of every pollutant and then prove to the majority of a jury that the defendant cause harm. Especially when - for reasons that I don't understand - libertarians are often also fairly supportive of corporate entities and even limited liability(!!!). This is without things that pay little attention to our notions of individuality (like epidemiology and the way vaccinations need to be social to be effective). So yeah, I tend to depart with most libertarians on property as the bedrock of individualism...
It's not that I lack empathy. I've been truly very lucky with my life. I have a terrific family and we all have our health. I also have clear eyes about the future - everyone eventually loses their health. Most eventually fall on hard luck.
I was simply amused by comparisons to times when people had to roam around the forest looking for food, often at a subsistence level. Here's a guy who still has his health and is still able to make a living - it's hardly the same thing. The whole conversation is funny (to me) for its absurdity. That's all.
I'm sorry, but an 80-year-old man who still has enough vigor to work in a warehouse retiring too early and running out of money is pretty far down the list on major tragedies in the human timeline.
Hinckley? What in the world? He was an insane man trying to impress Jodie Foster. Of all the assassinations or attempts to pick as an example...
"Well armed" must mean something different to you and me. Most "arms" are pistols... what war were handguns instrumental in winning? Oh, yeah, none.
The concept behind the Second Amendment was discredited and abandoned a long time ago. The founding fathers had a deep distrust of a standing army, and so the theory went that a well-regulated militia could instead serve to defend the nation. After a series of failures of militias to various crises, within a couple of decades there was a large standing army. Now the US military is so large and so heavily armed and trained that the sole remaining provision (the right to bear arms) is superficial at best. The Second Amendment isn't going anywhere, but as a bulwark against government it is a complete failure.
a Constitution that allows owning people is much better.
Hello, Mr. Van Winkle. You've had a long nap - you have a lot to catch up on.
Zoning laws in general are very problematic if you take a view of property as an inalienable right (or an inevitable consequence of other inalienable rights). A lot (the vast majority?) of libertarians take this viewpoint, but I've never been able to follow them. I think you can have a society that is quite respectful of individual rights while also having alternate ownership models. Property tax makes any claim of real "ownership" somewhat specious in any event - what is this if not rent? And a shitty form of rent, too - with no formal lease, and all the power to change the terms on one side.
Yeah, you have an inalienable right to liberty. Why are we going down this path?
Is this just going to be an unceasing torrent of attempts to stuff words into my mouth? Can we agree that slavery is bad and then move on to the next straw man?
your right to kill someone who is preventing you from dipping your cup into a lake when no other water source exists.
Or, you know, sue them.
I understood the argument perfectly - the author that I was responding to was invoking human rights in a dispute that has nothing to do with human rights. This is a case of a company receiving a subsidy, not people dying of thirst. You have to get pretty creative or have a very dire situation to tie water access to inalienable rights, and that point irked me. Maybe I'm being "dickish" by insisting on reserving words like "rights" for actual rights - but it's even more dickish to resort to name-calling.
For example, if life is an inalienable right, then food and water must be (else, no life).
Only if someone is actively depriving you of those things. Inalienable rights cannot be granted - you are born with them. You are not born with clean water - that is something that someone needs to take action to secure. Thus, not an inalienable right. If on the other hand someone is actively working to thwart your access to potable water, that is indeed an infringement on your right to life.
I am forbidden to grow crops on my own land here in suburbia.
Crops as a commercial enterprise or crops for personal use (most people would say a garden)? If the latter, that is a pretty strange restriction and I'd say does cross a line. I'm fairly libertarian-leaning - but I depart with many libertarians on property rights... it does indeed get complicated!
commoditize the air we all breathe
I don't know why you think I advocate commoditization. Air is available everywhere on earth. Potable water is not. If someone screws with the air, that is indeed a violation of your rights. If someone pollutes the water, that is indeed a violation of your rights.
I guess you ran out of arguments? I don't even know what you are trying to argue - where did I mention carrying anything?
Ah, so now we have gone from discussing what is and isn't an inherent right to differing interpretations of some UN document. I think that qualifies as a tangent.
An inherent right is something that you are born with. You can only be deprived of them. I have no problems saying that people who live in reasonable places should have a right to clean water - I just want to make it clear that this is a right that we are, as a society, choosing to grant and not something they are naturally born with.
Sounds like you think this is violating someones rights to not take care of people (or even animals) that you are legally responsible for. I disagree.
Yikes! No.
It's illegal to collect "your" rainwater because that deprives people with the downstream "rights". Water "rights" are a very complicated subject, indeed. But it's well-worn legal territory.
But that's a tangent. Of course you have a right to "get" water - that's a natural extension of the right to life. But that is YOU taking an action, not someone else. The moment your "right" demands action from someone else, it ceases to be a fundamental right as it now infringes on someone else's fundamental right.
"Reality" can't violate rights - only people. I never mentioned property - I just bristle at the notion that people could think that you have a "right" to water that is somehow fundamental... like you were born with water and people are taking it away from you. We can use the government to give people anything we want, and we can even call it a "right" if we want - but I want to make sure that we make a distinction because I think the concept of inalienable rights is very important.
My birth is what endowed me with my inalienable rights. Same with yours. And it's not "my claim" - inalienable rights underpin most of the concepts of Western civilization. The entire founding of the US is based upon it, as is the Constitution.
The right to life does not mean that people bear a responsibility to keep you alive, "dumbshit". It means they can not deprive you of life. Why did you resort to name calling?
Your "right to life" means that no one can take it from you, not that someone else is obligated to feed you.
You're splitting hairs. Intrinsic rights don't exist; all rights are entitlements.
Intrinsic rights don't violate anyone else's rights. You have a right to your life, you have a life to do whatever you want, you have a right to make your situation better by your own standard. Only when these rights butt up against someone else's do you have a conflict. You are born with these rights, and they form the basis for modern civilization.
Granted rights by definition require a stable government and have no limits, really. That's not splitting hairs - that's a major conceptual difference.
anywhere sufficient infrastructure exists to provide it affordably.
That's a pretty major caveat! Who would disagree with that?