And I think you're over-selling things a bit. I think it would be great if not-for-profits took over a big part of the economy, mostly because they're voluntary versions of government programs or cheaper and friendlier versions of businesses, but not all of it. Co-ops work best when things are steady and predictable, but it's hard to justify risky investments with them.
a huge swath of the middle class looses their homes.
OK, and what happens then? Banks don't want to pay property taxes on a bunch of empty houses, so they sell them - even at a loss. Housing prices drop until they're affordable. That's a bank's ultimate nightmare - lots of $250,000 mortgage loans backed by $150,000 houses.
Plenty of people could, but the American Dream is a better life, so both of them work and they fly to Disney Land or Hawaii instead of just driving to Six Flags or into the city.
I dont see that as the case. More food? Have you been to a supermarket?
Yes. When I was poor I got by on bags of frozen veggies, whole wheat bread, cheap deli meat, canned fruit and that kind of thing. An hour at minimum wage will easily feed one person for a day.
More housing? Housing is expensive, more than ever.
Yes, but it's more likely to have central AC and a two car garage.
Automobiles cost more than ever.
And last longer than ever. Buy used - I paid $5,000 for my current car, and it's lasted for over a decade with no major work.
How about health care? Factor that into your statement.
If we didn't use any of the medication or techniques discovered/created in the last half-century, it would be very cheap. But for some reason people prefer their expensive quintuple-bypasses, artificial hips, new antibiotics and AIDS cocktails - and that's skipping the capital costs of rescue helicopters, MRI and PET machines and malpractice insurance. You're literally saying that the cost of longer, healthier lives is too high.
That is good reason us humans need to reorg our economy to work under a principle of abundance instead of scarcity.
How does that work? Even things that literally grow on trees or fall like manna from heaven (apples and water) still take investment and work to either create or get up to contemporary standards. That means that they're scarce.
Everybody rich instead of just a few.
In the first world, almost everybody is. It's just hard to notice because there's nobody that isn't rich nearby to compare to.
Did you read the parent of my post before submitting yours?
Of course people have thoughts that they want to keep secret, but that's not the sort of thing that this article is about.
I wasn't responding to the article, I was responding to Justin's post. That's why I included the part where he said "And your boss? Your church?"
This isn't about everyone knowing your innermost thougts and feelings, this is about [letting people know] how you stand on certain important issues.
This isn't about innermost thoughts, it's about what I think other people's legal rights should be, so perhaps I should be clearer. I don't think fundamentalists should be allowed to serve on a jury, because they're unable to properly process certain ideas due to their delusions. I think people that mutilate their childrens' bodies for religious or cultural reasons should be sent to prison like any other child abuser. If you don't think that legal rights count as "issues", or don't think that a decade-long prison sentence is "important", then you need to explain your definitions for these words.
This is nothing to do with your boss knowing you think she's a nutter, and everything to do with her knowing that you think that abortion is an acceptable option.
Even if we limit the discussion to that, my boss talks about "baby killers" on a regular basis. Will she be able to put aside her hate for a "pro-death" person when choosing raises and promotions? Shouldn't I have the option of just keeping my mouth shut, the way most people do when she gets worked up about those ideas? Also, I don't just think she's just a bit goofy, I think she's mentally ill, in the legal sense of the word.
Being able to compartmentalize our lives to some extent is necessary for getting along in society, keeping politics out of the workplace a bit is part of that. And you missed the point of my last paragraph - why the urgent need to keep political opinions public, but so many others private? What odd logic makes my opinion on abortion an issue my boss needs to know about, even though my job has nothing to do with anything abortion-related, but not my opinions on so many other topics?
While idiots might believe complete business freedom is good
Quite true, but there are many idiots that don't believe that. On the other hand, there are also non-idiots that would agree with your statement, even some Nobel Prize winners.
Don't you WANT the government to know how you feel on the issues?
Most of the time, but always?
And your boss? Your church? Why be so afraid to think what you think?
My boss is Roman Catholic, who believes that when a sperm and egg combine, a ghost sticks to the combined DNA and it brings along a "has moral value" meta-tag. She also thinks that noone should ever question the actions of their country or church, under any circumstances, even if she admits there's no rational argument that can be given in their defence. She's a nice person, but I think that she's displaying two symptoms of severe mental illness and would be better off undergoing treatment. Do I really want her knowing that?
One of my ex-professors is a traditional Jew, while I think that circumcision, especially without painkillers and proper steralization, is an inexcusable violation of human rights. While I was in his class, should I have pointed out that I thought he was an accomplice in the sexual mutalation of his own children?
And what about the stuff that's more complex? I don't agree with the philosophies of Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, Adoph Hitler, Budda or Jesus, but I've learned something from the writings of (or about) all of them - how do I make sure that my "Hitler was right about..." ideas won't be misconstrued? Are people going to take the time to understand that while I think that the Roe v. Wade decision was the most imbecilic garbage produced by the USSC (even Dredd Scott had some actual logic), that I do think that abortion should be legal and the trimester system in that decision was the best compromise I've seen?
I guess I can see some people wanting that information private. That can't be the majority view, though...
If you have any mental life at all, you have some thoughts that you don't want to be public knowledge. Of course, you could prove me wrong by posting your full name and Soc. number, credit card number and expiration date, and how often and to what type of erotica you masterbate. Also, I dare you to tell your wife that she's not as pretty as she used to be - diplomacy is mostly subtle lying, and is also a part of every person's life.
most think it is O.K. that the government can prevent a person from paying a doctor to help them when they're sick
It's not just enought to give food to those that can't afford it.
It's not just enought to give food to everyone that wants it.
It's not just enought to give food to everyone, no matter what.
We have to give food to everyone, and keep them from any alternative.
Because if they could buy food, some would have better food than others.
God damn, where are my mod points when I need them? (Score:3, Interesting/Overrated)
Rationalization is a powerful force. It's absolutely amazing how many people really believe that "civil society" is the same thing as "government run society". They can't imagine a state where government exists to preserve human rights and has no other legitimate purpose, so to make themselves feel morally superior they pretend that it's impossible.
when what they really want is just to keep a few extra bucks a month
Wait a sec, that's what the parents are doing! Some might not be able to support their own kids education, but most are just trying to save money on the backs of their childless neighbors. Forcing people who choose one lifestyle to fund people that practice another is pretty close to (a mild form of) slavery.
There's no intrusive government laws -- there aren't any laws at all!
Which is called anarchic not libertarian. Libertarians want a government that is strong, but with that strength conterbalanced with strict limits on the areas of life it can affect. In liberal (free) societies, we keep our legal system mostly separate from our religious system, our cultural system and our mating system, because we believe that those kinds of freedom are important. Why are our economic and educational freedoms so much less important?
Then they drive on fancy new roads...
Their money is already gone, and because competing with government services is often illigal, always highly regulated and hard to build a business case for (you're competing against "free") there aren't any alternatives.
Show me a non-hypocritical anti-government libertarian and I'll show you a survivalist wacko.
You might as well call communists hypocrites for cashing their paychecks. Both Commies and Libbers want to change the system, but until they do, they don't have an alternative. If you just want to insult them, fine, but if you want to point out the error of their ways, try harder.
It's called "Caring about someone other than yourself for a change".
When I choose to give to charity, that's called caring for others. When someone else forces me to "give", that's called robbery. If it doesn't come from the heart, it isn't "caring".
the "every man for himself" concept is an evolutionary hold over...
that we can't get rid of. We can create a culture that encourages empathy and charity, we can punish people that don't participate, but the disire to improve yourself and your lot in life will always be greater than the desire to improve another person's, because it's your life.
No one is saying that conservatives can't be on TV, or that they can't say what they want. Most people don't think it's right for a PR firm working for the Republican Party to advertise themselves as politically neutral. If their tagline was "News for Conservatives" or if they got a sense of humor and called themselves "The 24-hour Right-Wing "Daily Show"", people wouldn't be so upset. But when they call themselves "Fair and Balanced", they need to make an honest effort, which they haven't done.
I mean, your post sounds like you're parroting one of their ads. Have you ever gotten your news from another source?
Since you don't actually know my stance on the issue, it's bad to assume what I think the relationship was.
If you were trying to point out a lack of evidence, you should have just said so, rather than only pointing out something that was getting better. Arguing against something is different than arguing that it isn't well-supported. You either need to communicate more clearly or stop being an ass when people don't manage to guess what you really meant.
That's why you didn't do that at all, but instead implied a causal effect?
Your original post suggested that more regulation caused a decrease in crime. My reply answered your question ("Then why...") with a group of alternatives that might be responsible, thus "take your pick". If I was implying a causal connection, you were doing the same to a greater degree.
And this: "DC's crime rates are high because it's filled with people in poverty." is clearly suggesting causation. Pot, kettle.
Find where I said either of those, then you get a cookie.
You didn't argue against the part of the OP that suggested that regulation had been increasing, but you did point out one thing that is getting better. The only reasonable conclusion is that you think that you believe that increased regulation has made things better (or left them the same).
As for this: "Yes and this is why I changed my view to support yours that America is the perfect case for this, given how regulating things less shows exactly how bad regulating things more does. Because, you know, regulating more is actually the same as regulating less." I had to assume sarcasm, so that you (probably) had changed your mind about regulation increasing, but that you hadn't changed you mind about the relationship between regulation and things getting better/worse. If you were actually agreeing with me, sorry for the mixup.
Right now, I'm not quite sure what your original point was. Either you're messing with me or your writing style is so ambiguous that I can't divine your meaning. If you want to continue this, why don't you just restate your original point in full, rather than using vage implications.
I'll ignore the fact that I was mirroring your fallacies in order to make a point, but mocking you for missing that would be too easy. I just wanted to point out that there are plenty of possible reasons for things getting better/worse other than changes in the legal system.
Besides it's too much fun to laugh at your inability to make a consistant argument: first it's getting better because of increased regulation, then it's getting worse because of decreased regulation. This is a textbook example of rationlization - change the facts to fit a pet theory.
Exactly. One of the ususal pro-natual rights arguments goes: Why can the government execute a murder? If you say "because 51% voted to execute", then any group that's 51% of the population has the right to steal and kill whenever they want. If the you say, "because the state exists to protect people's rights, including the right to life", then there's a safeguard against "the tyranny of the majority". That's why the US has a Constitution, to keep the legislature from doing whatever it wants.
The US Declaration of Independence has a part that spells it out pretty well:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed
John Locke's ideas were under heavy debate at the time, and making a new kingdom seemed like a bad idea, so they tried something new.
You missed the most important paragraph of my post:
Neither one of us believe in natual law, but that doesn't matter - we were talking about the beliefs of governments. You said "most governments have decided to regulate... murder as it is a generally held belief it is beneficial to the majority" and I pointed out that my government regulates murder for different reasons. It's fine to think that they weren't really justified, or even to think that they were crazy, but that doesn't change their documented reasoning.
Your morals are not everyone's morals; your world is not everyone else's.
That's fine, but it has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Jwdb said that most government use a certian justification for their laws, and I just pointed out that mine, and a few others, use completely different ones.
The more they regulate and litigate the worse things get here.
Then why have violent crime rates dropped drastically since the 60s?
Concealed gun permits, older population, higher abortion rates, take your pick. The point is that every one of those is a result of less regulation of people's lives.
If you want to see a re results of a highly regulated society, look at DC's crime rates.
It seems to me, that we've only gotten freer and safer over time.
I don't quite understand your claim that the tiger doesn't violate the right to live. If you believe a person has rights beyond the bounds of human society, then why is nature violating them not a violation? The tiger, be it capable of making moral choices or not, has still taken your life.
The right to life is a moral one, not an absolute one. Tigers don't "sin" when they kill people any more than malaria is "evil" when it does. They don't have the capacity to make choices like that - that kind of event is outside the realm of morality. Saying a heart attack violated your rights is like saying a snowstorm broke the law.
Then there's a difference of opinion between us. I personally do not believe in any form of absolute rights (be they moral, natural, or whatever) and am of the opinion that you only have the rights society grants to you or that you yourself can defend. To me, being alive is a privlege, but one I will obviously defend to the death.
Neither one of us believe in natual law, but that doesn't matter - we were talking about the beliefs of governments. You said "most governments have decided to regulate... murder as it is a generally held belief it is beneficial to the majority" and I pointed out that my government regulates murder for different reasons. It's fine to think that they weren't really justified, or even to think that they were crazy, but that doesn't change their documented reasoning.
I agree with your second statement but find it doesn't fit with the first. Society (in my opinion) gives you the rights and uses "fear of getting caught" to protect them. Fear itself does no giving, but is merely a mechanism employed by the guardians of your rights.
Under natual rights, weapons, security systems, fear of getting caught and government itself are all mechanisms used to protect rights, but they still can't grant them. Even when a government takes away legal rights you still have the moral ones, otherwise you couldn't say that a government did something wrong. For example, if you think that "rights" are granted by society or government, then slavery wasn't wrong in colonial times and genocide wasn't wrong under several governments, because it was legal and sanctioned by the majority.
There is no such thing as a natural right to keep on living
Legal codes based on natural rights apply only to people, not to animals or objects. Tigers, malaria, lightning strikes and starvation can kill you, but they can't make moral choices the way that people can, so they don't viloate your right to live.
Those individual rights are not natural, but given to you by government and society.
My govenment's founding philosopy is based on the idea that people have inalienable moral rights, and governments exist to secure them. My moral right to life is backed up with government legal prohibition of murder, but the government can't give you the moral right (or take it away).
If you're going to say that "government and society" gives me rights, you might as well say "the fear of getting caught" gives me rights. Both might help to protect my rights, but no matter how corrupt the government or how fearless the criminal, I still have the same natural rights, because they're a part of my nature as a human being.
I was speaking of children, which pretty much destroy your claim of being 'almost identical.' You can certainly extrapolate whatever ignorant shit you like from my comment, but that has no bearing on my meaning.
If they're old enough to go into the juvenile system, the fact the the assault happend at school shouldn't make a difference. If you want to talk about three-year-olds, you need to respond to a different post.
It seem you're one of those jackasses that believes children are tiny adults and should be treated as such.
It seems that you're one of those jackasses that thinks that violence builds character. "Let them fight it out" is not a good policy. And calling a child with a broken nose or a pile of books that were set on fire a "pussy" for tattling is incredibly asinine and childish.
Children are different than adults, and that's why we have different punishments for different ages - when they're old enough to systematically bully, "no punishment" shouldn't be an option.
Slashdot Mirror
And I think you're over-selling things a bit. I think it would be great if not-for-profits took over a big part of the economy, mostly because they're voluntary versions of government programs or cheaper and friendlier versions of businesses, but not all of it. Co-ops work best when things are steady and predictable, but it's hard to justify risky investments with them.
Welfare and charity isn't money from the labor of other people?
OK, and what happens then? Banks don't want to pay property taxes on a bunch of empty houses, so they sell them - even at a loss. Housing prices drop until they're affordable. That's a bank's ultimate nightmare - lots of $250,000 mortgage loans backed by $150,000 houses.
Plenty of people could, but the American Dream is a better life, so both of them work and they fly to Disney Land or Hawaii instead of just driving to Six Flags or into the city.
Yes. When I was poor I got by on bags of frozen veggies, whole wheat bread, cheap deli meat, canned fruit and that kind of thing. An hour at minimum wage will easily feed one person for a day.
More housing? Housing is expensive, more than ever.
Yes, but it's more likely to have central AC and a two car garage.
Automobiles cost more than ever.
And last longer than ever. Buy used - I paid $5,000 for my current car, and it's lasted for over a decade with no major work.
How about health care? Factor that into your statement.
If we didn't use any of the medication or techniques discovered/created in the last half-century, it would be very cheap. But for some reason people prefer their expensive quintuple-bypasses, artificial hips, new antibiotics and AIDS cocktails - and that's skipping the capital costs of rescue helicopters, MRI and PET machines and malpractice insurance. You're literally saying that the cost of longer, healthier lives is too high.
Where exactly are apples expensive?!?!?
How does that work? Even things that literally grow on trees or fall like manna from heaven (apples and water) still take investment and work to either create or get up to contemporary standards. That means that they're scarce.
Everybody rich instead of just a few.
In the first world, almost everybody is. It's just hard to notice because there's nobody that isn't rich nearby to compare to.
Of course people have thoughts that they want to keep secret, but that's not the sort of thing that this article is about.
I wasn't responding to the article, I was responding to Justin's post. That's why I included the part where he said "And your boss? Your church?"
This isn't about everyone knowing your innermost thougts and feelings, this is about [letting people know] how you stand on certain important issues.
This isn't about innermost thoughts, it's about what I think other people's legal rights should be, so perhaps I should be clearer. I don't think fundamentalists should be allowed to serve on a jury, because they're unable to properly process certain ideas due to their delusions. I think people that mutilate their childrens' bodies for religious or cultural reasons should be sent to prison like any other child abuser. If you don't think that legal rights count as "issues", or don't think that a decade-long prison sentence is "important", then you need to explain your definitions for these words.
This is nothing to do with your boss knowing you think she's a nutter, and everything to do with her knowing that you think that abortion is an acceptable option.
Even if we limit the discussion to that, my boss talks about "baby killers" on a regular basis. Will she be able to put aside her hate for a "pro-death" person when choosing raises and promotions? Shouldn't I have the option of just keeping my mouth shut, the way most people do when she gets worked up about those ideas? Also, I don't just think she's just a bit goofy, I think she's mentally ill, in the legal sense of the word.
Being able to compartmentalize our lives to some extent is necessary for getting along in society, keeping politics out of the workplace a bit is part of that. And you missed the point of my last paragraph - why the urgent need to keep political opinions public, but so many others private? What odd logic makes my opinion on abortion an issue my boss needs to know about, even though my job has nothing to do with anything abortion-related, but not my opinions on so many other topics?
Quite true, but there are many idiots that don't believe that. On the other hand, there are also non-idiots that would agree with your statement, even some Nobel Prize winners.
Most of the time, but always?
And your boss? Your church? Why be so afraid to think what you think?
My boss is Roman Catholic, who believes that when a sperm and egg combine, a ghost sticks to the combined DNA and it brings along a "has moral value" meta-tag. She also thinks that noone should ever question the actions of their country or church, under any circumstances, even if she admits there's no rational argument that can be given in their defence. She's a nice person, but I think that she's displaying two symptoms of severe mental illness and would be better off undergoing treatment. Do I really want her knowing that?
One of my ex-professors is a traditional Jew, while I think that circumcision, especially without painkillers and proper steralization, is an inexcusable violation of human rights. While I was in his class, should I have pointed out that I thought he was an accomplice in the sexual mutalation of his own children?
And what about the stuff that's more complex? I don't agree with the philosophies of Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, Adoph Hitler, Budda or Jesus, but I've learned something from the writings of (or about) all of them - how do I make sure that my "Hitler was right about ..." ideas won't be misconstrued? Are people going to take the time to understand that while I think that the Roe v. Wade decision was the most imbecilic garbage produced by the USSC (even Dredd Scott had some actual logic), that I do think that abortion should be legal and the trimester system in that decision was the best compromise I've seen?
I guess I can see some people wanting that information private. That can't be the majority view, though...
If you have any mental life at all, you have some thoughts that you don't want to be public knowledge. Of course, you could prove me wrong by posting your full name and Soc. number, credit card number and expiration date, and how often and to what type of erotica you masterbate. Also, I dare you to tell your wife that she's not as pretty as she used to be - diplomacy is mostly subtle lying, and is also a part of every person's life.
It's not just enought to give food to those that can't afford it.
It's not just enought to give food to everyone that wants it.
It's not just enought to give food to everyone, no matter what.
We have to give food to everyone, and keep them from any alternative.
Because if they could buy food, some would have better food than others.
Is that about right?
Rationalization is a powerful force. It's absolutely amazing how many people really believe that "civil society" is the same thing as "government run society". They can't imagine a state where government exists to preserve human rights and has no other legitimate purpose, so to make themselves feel morally superior they pretend that it's impossible.
when what they really want is just to keep a few extra bucks a month
Wait a sec, that's what the parents are doing! Some might not be able to support their own kids education, but most are just trying to save money on the backs of their childless neighbors. Forcing people who choose one lifestyle to fund people that practice another is pretty close to (a mild form of) slavery.
There's no intrusive government laws -- there aren't any laws at all!
Which is called anarchic not libertarian. Libertarians want a government that is strong, but with that strength conterbalanced with strict limits on the areas of life it can affect. In liberal (free) societies, we keep our legal system mostly separate from our religious system, our cultural system and our mating system, because we believe that those kinds of freedom are important. Why are our economic and educational freedoms so much less important?
Then they drive on fancy new roads...
Their money is already gone, and because competing with government services is often illigal, always highly regulated and hard to build a business case for (you're competing against "free") there aren't any alternatives.
Show me a non-hypocritical anti-government libertarian and I'll show you a survivalist wacko.
You might as well call communists hypocrites for cashing their paychecks. Both Commies and Libbers want to change the system, but until they do, they don't have an alternative. If you just want to insult them, fine, but if you want to point out the error of their ways, try harder.
When I choose to give to charity, that's called caring for others. When someone else forces me to "give", that's called robbery. If it doesn't come from the heart, it isn't "caring".
the "every man for himself" concept is an evolutionary hold over...
that we can't get rid of. We can create a culture that encourages empathy and charity, we can punish people that don't participate, but the disire to improve yourself and your lot in life will always be greater than the desire to improve another person's, because it's your life.
I mean, your post sounds like you're parroting one of their ads. Have you ever gotten your news from another source?
If you were trying to point out a lack of evidence, you should have just said so, rather than only pointing out something that was getting better. Arguing against something is different than arguing that it isn't well-supported. You either need to communicate more clearly or stop being an ass when people don't manage to guess what you really meant.
Your original post suggested that more regulation caused a decrease in crime. My reply answered your question ("Then why...") with a group of alternatives that might be responsible, thus "take your pick". If I was implying a causal connection, you were doing the same to a greater degree.
And this: "DC's crime rates are high because it's filled with people in poverty." is clearly suggesting causation. Pot, kettle.
Find where I said either of those, then you get a cookie.
You didn't argue against the part of the OP that suggested that regulation had been increasing, but you did point out one thing that is getting better. The only reasonable conclusion is that you think that you believe that increased regulation has made things better (or left them the same).
As for this: "Yes and this is why I changed my view to support yours that America is the perfect case for this, given how regulating things less shows exactly how bad regulating things more does. Because, you know, regulating more is actually the same as regulating less." I had to assume sarcasm, so that you (probably) had changed your mind about regulation increasing, but that you hadn't changed you mind about the relationship between regulation and things getting better/worse. If you were actually agreeing with me, sorry for the mixup.
Right now, I'm not quite sure what your original point was. Either you're messing with me or your writing style is so ambiguous that I can't divine your meaning. If you want to continue this, why don't you just restate your original point in full, rather than using vage implications.
Besides it's too much fun to laugh at your inability to make a consistant argument: first it's getting better because of increased regulation, then it's getting worse because of decreased regulation. This is a textbook example of rationlization - change the facts to fit a pet theory.
The US Declaration of Independence has a part that spells it out pretty well:
John Locke's ideas were under heavy debate at the time, and making a new kingdom seemed like a bad idea, so they tried something new.Neither one of us believe in natual law, but that doesn't matter - we were talking about the beliefs of governments. You said "most governments have decided to regulate ... murder as it is a generally held belief it is beneficial to the majority" and I pointed out that my government regulates murder for different reasons. It's fine to think that they weren't really justified, or even to think that they were crazy, but that doesn't change their documented reasoning.
Your morals are not everyone's morals; your world is not everyone else's.
That's fine, but it has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Jwdb said that most government use a certian justification for their laws, and I just pointed out that mine, and a few others, use completely different ones.
That's why I pay rent and commute.
Then why have violent crime rates dropped drastically since the 60s?
Concealed gun permits, older population, higher abortion rates, take your pick. The point is that every one of those is a result of less regulation of people's lives.
If you want to see a re results of a highly regulated society, look at DC's crime rates.
It seems to me, that we've only gotten freer and safer over time.
Yes, we have. Less regulation is more freedom.
Wire me up, baby!
The right to life is a moral one, not an absolute one. Tigers don't "sin" when they kill people any more than malaria is "evil" when it does. They don't have the capacity to make choices like that - that kind of event is outside the realm of morality. Saying a heart attack violated your rights is like saying a snowstorm broke the law.
Then there's a difference of opinion between us. I personally do not believe in any form of absolute rights (be they moral, natural, or whatever) and am of the opinion that you only have the rights society grants to you or that you yourself can defend. To me, being alive is a privlege, but one I will obviously defend to the death.
Neither one of us believe in natual law, but that doesn't matter - we were talking about the beliefs of governments. You said "most governments have decided to regulate ... murder as it is a generally held belief it is beneficial to the majority" and I pointed out that my government regulates murder for different reasons. It's fine to think that they weren't really justified, or even to think that they were crazy, but that doesn't change their documented reasoning.
I agree with your second statement but find it doesn't fit with the first. Society (in my opinion) gives you the rights and uses "fear of getting caught" to protect them. Fear itself does no giving, but is merely a mechanism employed by the guardians of your rights.
Under natual rights, weapons, security systems, fear of getting caught and government itself are all mechanisms used to protect rights, but they still can't grant them. Even when a government takes away legal rights you still have the moral ones, otherwise you couldn't say that a government did something wrong. For example, if you think that "rights" are granted by society or government, then slavery wasn't wrong in colonial times and genocide wasn't wrong under several governments, because it was legal and sanctioned by the majority.
Legal codes based on natural rights apply only to people, not to animals or objects. Tigers, malaria, lightning strikes and starvation can kill you, but they can't make moral choices the way that people can, so they don't viloate your right to live.
Those individual rights are not natural, but given to you by government and society.
My govenment's founding philosopy is based on the idea that people have inalienable moral rights, and governments exist to secure them. My moral right to life is backed up with government legal prohibition of murder, but the government can't give you the moral right (or take it away).
If you're going to say that "government and society" gives me rights, you might as well say "the fear of getting caught" gives me rights. Both might help to protect my rights, but no matter how corrupt the government or how fearless the criminal, I still have the same natural rights, because they're a part of my nature as a human being.
If they're old enough to go into the juvenile system, the fact the the assault happend at school shouldn't make a difference. If you want to talk about three-year-olds, you need to respond to a different post.
It seem you're one of those jackasses that believes children are tiny adults and should be treated as such.
It seems that you're one of those jackasses that thinks that violence builds character. "Let them fight it out" is not a good policy. And calling a child with a broken nose or a pile of books that were set on fire a "pussy" for tattling is incredibly asinine and childish.
Children are different than adults, and that's why we have different punishments for different ages - when they're old enough to systematically bully, "no punishment" shouldn't be an option.