Now you edge away from your original absolutist position, rightly pointing out that "works" is a relative judgement. Seth would probably want to say that no aspect of existing or past socialist societies worked, but if he did, he would be wrong as well.sandinista wrote:Another broken record. I suppose you think there are no absolutist statements?JimC wrote:Another absolutist statementsandinista wrote:
...BTW, capitalism has never, ever worked either.
They exist, obviously, but I suppose by that statement you mean that I think there should be no absolutist statements. They may be valid sometimes, but the "never, ever worked" is a blatantly incorrect statement, because it is absolute in a context that needs shades of grey. I have no problem with you pointing out the ills associated with capitalism, but such blanket statements are empty rhetoric, not argument.
Like every one of your posts talking about absolutist definitions like left right and center?JimC wrote:and one with no real meaning.
They are not absolutist, but you probably have a point that they are very vague, do not fit the nuances of individual opinion, and often don't really contribute effectively to the debate. I will try to be more precise in future.
depends how you define "works". Any society "works" if you define "work" to suit your position.JimC wrote:Even at its worst, it still works
The Almighty Unions
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 74168
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
- sandinista
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
- About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media? - Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
Why the red writing?
Thanks.JimC wrote:They exist, obviously
It is arguable if they are absolutist or not. The way you refer to those terms consistantly is, IMO, absolutist. Again though, thanks.JimC wrote:They are not absolutist, but you probably have a point that they are very vague, do not fit the nuances of individual opinion, and often don't really contribute effectively to the debate. I will try to be more precise in future.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 74168
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
Exploring the "left" part of my centre-left position?sandinista wrote:Why the red writing?


Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
That's true. Capitalism isn't a "shining bastion of personal freedom," because it doesn't purport to be there. Capitalism is a system where there is privately owned property and the means of production is for the larger part owned privately. That economic system can exist within a political system that protects individual freedom, or in a system which does not (except that capitalism does require the freedom to own private property and the means of production - beyond that, other freedoms are not required for capitalism to be the economic system).JimC wrote:This is yet another symptom of absolutism, whether it be of the left or of the right. Tongue in cheek, I use the term "monster" for capitalism; I know that sandinista and others will see it unreservedly as a monstrous system of selfish greed that grinds the proletariat into the dust, and I know that seth and others will see it purely as a shining bastion of personal freedom...sandinista wrote:"become" indeed. Already there jimbo.egbert wrote:Become? We've been there already see Anti-Trust laws and Robber Barons. And now the "Global economy" scam is being used to force workers to "compete" in a race to the bottom.JimC wrote: Without unions, things would be very unbalanced indeed. The power of capital, and its understandable desire to drive wages and conditions as low as possible, means that individual workers have little chance to gain a fair share if they act alone. Collective, organised action by workers is vital; without it, capitalism would tend to become the total monster that sandinista thinks it is already...
As usual, the truth lies somewhere in-between...![]()
The thing is, in countries where capitalism is allowed, or at least the economies are "mixed" (allowing the private ownership of property and some private ownership of the means of production), we can see that other liberal protections on individual liberties are also protected. People tend to have, in capitalist and mixed economies, a lot of personal freedoms, including speech, religion, press, arms-bearing to some extent, security in their persons, houses papers and effects, etc. The right to own property tends to logically result in the protection of other rights - moreover, if a person owns real property, he or she tends to have the right to do what he or she wants to do on that property (within reason, generally allowing for restrictions on behavior that constitute nuisances or harm neighboring properties, and subject to neutrally and equally applied zoning and use ordinances). Usually, the right to exclude or include others on one's own property, the right to say what one wants on one's own property, etc., results in at least a level of personal freedom that is above that which exists in countries that do not allow the private ownership of real property.
The abuses of the industrial revolution were largely a function of a lack of reasonable legislation. What is often confused by those scorning capitalism is laissez-faire capitalism with capitalism. Capitalism need not be completely laissez-faire in order to still be capitalism. We get a lot of folks scorning capitalism who are suggesting that capitalism means that there are not laws restricting the conduct of businesses and employers. Capitalism, however, need not be anarcho-capitalism. That is one form of capitalism, but it is not a requirement or even the dominant form. There isn't any mathematical precision we can lend to the issue, and plainly the government can legislate away the private ownership of the means of production by making laws and regulations that do so through the back door.JimC wrote:
There have been times (eg. early in the industrial revolution) and places (eg. many third world countries today) where capitalism comes truly close to deserving that moniker, whatever innovations or economic growth it was fostering. However, where working people can organise, and where progressive governments can legislate, a workable, pragmatic system will evolve where the excesses of capitalist greed are checked and balanced. The far left will grumble that the underlying system has not been radically overhauled; they refuse to see the sobering lessons of history which come from previous attempts at communist government, always lamely claiming that true socialism is just around the corner, given one more chance...
Usually, those third world sweat shops exist in political systems that are not liberal constitutional democracies. For example - China. Where a country has a decent representative democracy that is sworn to respect individual liberty and the fundamental rights of man, the appalling conditions tend to be dismantled over time because of the ability of people to expose the conditions to the disinfecting sunlight of truth and reason. A sweatshop in China has little chance of being dismantled because those that protest in China are thrown in prison, if not worse. A sweatshop in the US or France will likely be found out, and picketed. And, the rights of individual employees have champions and those champions ride voting blocs into power, and those persons act create governmental institutions that protect those voting blocs (like labor boards, and workers rights and safety commissions).JimC wrote:
The champions of capital will rightly point to the innovation, drive and efficiency which accrue from a free enterprise system; what they want, however, is for the shackles to be removed, and the beast allowed to control absolutely how it treats its labour force. The fruits of that are to be seen in third world sweatshops, where non-unionised labour toil under appalling conditions, without hindance from the corrupt governments that welcome unscrupulous corporations to their countries. Perhaps there, one day, another Lenin will arise. If so, we know whose fault it will be...
Re: The Almighty Unions
There are a plethora of laws. But the fact remains that the people of the community, either my local community or the national community, cannot get together and vote to end my life, or imprison me merely because they choose to do so, or take my property without providing "just compensation."sandinista wrote:Of course all those things are "subject to popular vote". What are you talking about? There are no laws where you live?Seth wrote:It means exactly what it says. My life is not subject to popular vote. My liberty is not subject to popular vote. My private property is not subject to popular vote. Any vote that purports to remove any of the three will be met with force in defense of my natural, unalienable and fundamental human rights.sandinista wrote:Besides the sloganism, what do you mean by that? Life, liberty and property? Sounds like some kind of libraian mantra that makes about as much sense as any religious mantra. The rest of your post is just more slogansim. "protect individual liberty and rights"?? rights to what? Liberty meaning what? You and JimC should have a cliche contest.Seth wrote:Individual rights to life, liberty and property are not subject to popular vote.
Fundamental, unalienable rights are not subject to being revoked by popular vote. That's a bedrock principle of our nation. This does not mean that the exercise of those rights may not be reasonably regulated in the public interest, but that's something entirely different from the tyranny of the majority.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- sandinista
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
- About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media? - Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
If there are a plethora of laws, don't they interfere with your precious liberty? Where on earth do people get together to vote to kill someone? Of course you can get imprisoned because the government chooses to, just break a law. Break a drug law and you're property will be taken away as well. What fundamental rights are you talking about? "the exercise of those rights may not be reasonably regulated in the public interest"?? Your all over the map on this one.Seth wrote:There are a plethora of laws. But the fact remains that the people of the community, either my local community or the national community, cannot get together and vote to end my life, or imprison me merely because they choose to do so, or take my property without providing "just compensation."sandinista wrote:Of course all those things are "subject to popular vote". What are you talking about? There are no laws where you live?Seth wrote:It means exactly what it says. My life is not subject to popular vote. My liberty is not subject to popular vote. My private property is not subject to popular vote. Any vote that purports to remove any of the three will be met with force in defense of my natural, unalienable and fundamental human rights.sandinista wrote:Besides the sloganism, what do you mean by that? Life, liberty and property? Sounds like some kind of libraian mantra that makes about as much sense as any religious mantra. The rest of your post is just more slogansim. "protect individual liberty and rights"?? rights to what? Liberty meaning what? You and JimC should have a cliche contest.Seth wrote:Individual rights to life, liberty and property are not subject to popular vote.
Fundamental, unalienable rights are not subject to being revoked by popular vote. That's a bedrock principle of our nation. This does not mean that the exercise of those rights may not be reasonably regulated in the public interest, but that's something entirely different from the tyranny of the majority.

Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
Almost all laws interfere with liberty. However, liberty is never unfettered. We live in a Republic. The fact that liberty is something to value doesn't mean that a society has to be anarchic.
I think what he means about reasonable regulation is something like time,place and manner restrictions on free speech. Like, you're free to demonstrate and scream and yell about the G-whatever summit, but you can stand outside my house with a bullhorn and keep me awake all night doing it.
I think what he means about reasonable regulation is something like time,place and manner restrictions on free speech. Like, you're free to demonstrate and scream and yell about the G-whatever summit, but you can stand outside my house with a bullhorn and keep me awake all night doing it.
Re: The Almighty Unions
Rwanda. Iran. Iraq. Syria. Africa. South America. Europe. Asia. It happens all over the planet, any time some group gets together and decides to kill members of their own community for no better reason than that they don't like them.sandinista wrote:
If there are a plethora of laws, don't they interfere with your precious liberty? Where on earth do people get together to vote to kill someone?
Wrong. That's called "the rule of law." Imprisonment for violation of law occurs, in the US, only AFTER due process. The presumption of our system is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." Therefore, your statement is non sequitur. The government cannot simply "choose" to imprison me, it must have probable cause to believe that I have committed a crime (violated a law) before it can even ARREST me and bring me to trial, and in a criminal case (as opposed to civil) it must PROVE to a jury of my peers that I am guilty beyond ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. I am presumed to be innocent until that time.Of course you can get imprisoned because the government chooses to, just break a law.
This is unlike most socialist nations and all tyrannies, where you CAN be seized and imprisoned without cause or legal justification, merely on the say-so of the government. China is notorious for doing so, as was, of course, Stalinist Russia, and a gazillion other tin-pot dictatorships like Zimbabwe.
Not quite. Asset forfeiture is highly constitutionally suspect, but it is based on the legal presumption that IF (and only if) the particular property involved can be linked directly to the profits of an illegal drug transaction, that they are therefore the fruits of a crime and may be seized by the government. But the government cannot simply "take away" your property...unlike in socialist nations where the concept of private property doesn't exist or is severely restricted...it must first prove that it's the fruits of a criminal enterprise.Break a drug law and you're property will be taken away as well.
Among them are life, liberty, property, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceable assembly, freedom of association, freedom of disassociation, freedom of speech, freedom of petition to redress grievances, freedom of the vote, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to substantive and procedural due process of law, the right to a trial by a jury of my peers, the right to the writ of habeas corpus, the right to be secure in my person and home from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to refuse to quarter soldiers except in time of war, the right to personal medical privacy, the right to serve on a jury, the right to run for and hold public office, and a host of other fundamental, unalienable rights.What fundamental rights are you talking about?
Not really, it's just that you are evidently too ignorant to understand complex legal, philosophical and political arguments. You should probably stick to playing your Gameboy and popping your zits."the exercise of those rights may not be reasonably regulated in the public interest"?? Your all over the map on this one.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- sandinista
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
- About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media? - Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
I was directing the question at seth. Anyway, he said specifically, "Individual rights to life, liberty and property are not subject to popular vote.". That sounds wrong. Take drug laws for instance, it would seem to me that the individual right to do drugs, any drug really, is subject to popular vote. Would you not have to elect a president that would start the ball rolling for federal legalization? With the same example, a persons life and property are also effected by these laws. Just seems funny an american talking about "Individual rights to life, liberty and property" and defending them to the deathCoito ergo sum wrote:Almost all laws interfere with liberty. However, liberty is never unfettered. We live in a Republic. The fact that liberty is something to value doesn't mean that a society has to be anarchic.
I think what he means about reasonable regulation is something like time,place and manner restrictions on free speech. Like, you're free to demonstrate and scream and yell about the G-whatever summit, but you can stand outside my house with a bullhorn and keep me awake all night doing it.

Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.
- sandinista
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
- About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media? - Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
Really, they get together, have a vote and kill someone? Like a death election?Seth wrote:Rwanda. Iran. Iraq. Syria. Africa. South America. Europe. Asia. It happens all over the planet, any time some group gets together and decides to kill members of their own community for no better reason than that they don't like them.
doesn't matter, the state makes the laws and chooses which ones to enforce by prison sentences. Sometimes the state will simply murder you. (waco as an example)Seth wrote:Wrong. That's called "the rule of law." Imprisonment for violation of law occurs, in the US, only AFTER due process....
yes, quite. You're property can be seized. Simply by making money through the sale of drugs. All your "ifs" don't make any difference to the fact that the government CAN simply take away your property.Seth wrote:Not quite. Asset forfeiture is highly constitutionally suspect, but it is based on the legal presumption that IF (and only if) the particular property involved can be linked directly to the profits of an illegal drug transaction, that they are therefore the fruits of a crime and may be seized by the government. But the government cannot simply "take away" your property...
More sloganism. Everything you listed has exceptions and in most cases degrees. As in some are "free'er" than others. Some are outright ignored (the right to substantive and procedural due process of law). I still can't see how "liberty" is a "right" when "liberty" doesn't even really exist.Seth wrote:Among them are life, liberty, property, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceable assembly, freedom of association, freedom of disassociation, freedom of speech, freedom of petition to redress grievances, freedom of the vote, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to substantive and procedural due process of law, the right to a trial by a jury of my peers, the right to the writ of habeas corpus, the right to be secure in my person and home from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to refuse to quarter soldiers except in time of war, the right to personal medical privacy, the right to serve on a jury, the right to run for and hold public office, and a host of other fundamental, unalienable rights.
Oh a personal attack. Wow...really? You're ideology and dogma doesn't stand up so you resort to the old personal attack. Predictable and pathetic.Seth wrote:Not really, it's just that you are evidently too ignorant to understand complex legal, philosophical and political arguments. You should probably stick to playing your Gameboy and popping your zits.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.
Re: The Almighty Unions
It's not your right to "do" drugs that's infringed upon, it's your right to POSSESS them that's regulated. It's the substance itself that's contraband. You have the "right" to consume any drug you wish, but the government has authority, under its police power, to regulate or ban the possession of nearly any substance or object in the interests of public peace and order. Bans on substances like pot or heroin are based on public policy considerations that address the secondary effects of the drug trade, like crime and addiction that creates policing and public safety problems for society.sandinista wrote:I was directing the question at seth. Anyway, he said specifically, "Individual rights to life, liberty and property are not subject to popular vote.". That sounds wrong. Take drug laws for instance, it would seem to me that the individual right to do drugs, any drug really, is subject to popular vote.Coito ergo sum wrote:Almost all laws interfere with liberty. However, liberty is never unfettered. We live in a Republic. The fact that liberty is something to value doesn't mean that a society has to be anarchic.
I think what he means about reasonable regulation is something like time,place and manner restrictions on free speech. Like, you're free to demonstrate and scream and yell about the G-whatever summit, but you can stand outside my house with a bullhorn and keep me awake all night doing it.
The analogy would be that while you have the right to keep and bear arms, you do NOT have the right to operate or discharge them anywhere you please, and the government is fully empowered, under it's police powers, to regulate how, when and where you may operate a firearm, in the interests of public safety. The same applies to drugs and alcohol. With alcohol, the government regulates who may sell it, under what conditions, and where, and it regulates how the consumer may consume it, and where. It forbids you from drinking alcohol in a public place, and it forbids you from being drunk in public or while driving. The level of regulation of other drugs depends on the drug, and can include an outright ban on possession of the substance if the legislature, in its representative wisdom, deems possession to be too dangerous to the public health, safety and welfare to be permitted.
The President does not propose legislation. Any member of Congress, either in the House or the Senate, can draft and propose legislation. It's up to the representative democratic process as to whether such legislation is passed. Then the President has a chance to veto it. If he does, Congress can override his veto and the bill becomes law without the President's signature.Would you not have to elect a president that would start the ball rolling for federal legalization?
I disagree with CES about the propriety of the President being able to legitimately refuse to enforce validly passed legislation merely because he thinks a law is "unconstitutional." There's a thread discussing that legal issue here.
Of course one's life and property are "effected" (sic) by laws. But being affected by a law is not the same thing as a "democratic" vote to remove or repudiate those rights. In the first place, laws affect everyone equally. A law regulating my use of private property for some police-power reason also affects your use of your property. I'm not talking about such things. I'm talking about you, and the other members of the community in which I reside getting together and "voting" to take my land away from ME because you, as a group, either want it or believe I'm unworthy of owning it.With the same example, a persons life and property are also effected by these laws.
I agree, it does sound a bit strange, and I'd agree with you that the government ought not be regulating what plants individuals can grow and consume, or to what extent. You'll find that such defense of liberty is a staunchly Libertarian argument, but that liberals, socialists and progressives have no problem with the use and abuse of government regulatory authority because their entire political philosophy is based in the rejection of individual liberty and property.Just seems funny an american talking about "Individual rights to life, liberty and property" and defending them to the deathwhen you can go to prison for growing a plant.
You are aware that under Stalin, and Castro, and other socialist/Marxist/Communist societies, individually growing pot can be a capital offense, right?
The very essence of socialism in all its forms is authoritarianism, not anarchy or even Libertarianism. In all such systems, the government controls what you do, how you do it, when you do it, what you may own, where you live, what you can say and virtually every other aspect of your life, in the interests of proletarian solidarity and to eliminate dangerous counterrevolutionary thoughts like "I have a right to enjoy the fruits of my labor" and "I have the right to think and speak as I please," and suchlike liberties that are dangerous to socialist ideology.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Re: The Almighty Unions
"Hey guys! Let's get all our brother Hutus together and go chop the arms and heads off all of those degenerate Tutsis, they don't deserve to live anyway!"sandinista wrote:Really, they get together, have a vote and kill someone? Like a death election?Seth wrote:Rwanda. Iran. Iraq. Syria. Africa. South America. Europe. Asia. It happens all over the planet, any time some group gets together and decides to kill members of their own community for no better reason than that they don't like them.
"Yeah, let's go!"
"Kool, I love chopping arms off of babies, let's go!"
That's every bit as much a "vote" as marking a ballot.
Seth wrote:Wrong. That's called "the rule of law." Imprisonment for violation of law occurs, in the US, only AFTER due process....
In the US, there is really no such thing as "the state." In the US, "the state" is actually "we, the People" acting through our democratically elected representatives, and what they enact the next legislature can repeal. Moreover, in many states, like Colorado, the People have the right to petition measures, including constitutional amendments, directly onto the ballot, which provides a check and balance against a legislature that is not compliant with the will of the people.doesn't matter, the state makes the laws and chooses which ones to enforce by prison sentences.
Yes, sometimes the state engages in miscarriages of justice like Waco and Ruby Ridge. All the more reason to take power away from government, not submit to it. The instances of such "state murder" in socialist societies vastly exceeds anything ever found in the US. Stalinism alone killed more than 40 million people precisely that way.Sometimes the state will simply murder you. (waco as an example)
Seth wrote:Not quite. Asset forfeiture is highly constitutionally suspect, but it is based on the legal presumption that IF (and only if) the particular property involved can be linked directly to the profits of an illegal drug transaction, that they are therefore the fruits of a crime and may be seized by the government. But the government cannot simply "take away" your property...
No, it can't "simply" take away your property, you (and your property) have full rights of due process of law under which you can challenge a seizure as being unjust or not legally supported. If your property is not the fruits of a crime, then the government CANNOT "simply take away your property."yes, quite. You're property can be seized. Simply by making money through the sale of drugs. All your "ifs" don't make any difference to the fact that the government CAN simply take away your property.
Seth wrote:Among them are life, liberty, property, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceable assembly, freedom of association, freedom of disassociation, freedom of speech, freedom of petition to redress grievances, freedom of the vote, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to substantive and procedural due process of law, the right to a trial by a jury of my peers, the right to the writ of habeas corpus, the right to be secure in my person and home from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to refuse to quarter soldiers except in time of war, the right to personal medical privacy, the right to serve on a jury, the right to run for and hold public office, and a host of other fundamental, unalienable rights.
More sloganism.
Hardly.
By that you mean that all rights are subject to reasonable regulation, which is true. No right is absolute, not even the right to life. But you pose a false dilemma fallacy when you imply that because rights are subject to reasonable regulation, that this means that no one is free. Sure, there are "degrees" of freedom, that's part of civilization. The moral strength of any political system depends on how much it protects individual freedom and rights within the scope of ordered liberty.Everything you listed has exceptions and in most cases degrees.
Well, liberty exists as the root condition. In a society comprised of one human only, there are no legal or moral restraints at all, and liberty is absolute. Only when two or more humans come into contact is the liberty of both constrained to some degree or other in the interests of coexistence. To suggest that because rights may and indeed must be balanced where they conflict with the rights of others indicates that there is no liberty at all is simply, as you put it, sloganeering...anarchist sloganeering.As in some are "free'er" than others. Some are outright ignored (the right to substantive and procedural due process of law). I still can't see how "liberty" is a "right" when "liberty" doesn't even really exist.
Seth wrote:Not really, it's just that you are evidently too ignorant to understand complex legal, philosophical and political arguments. You should probably stick to playing your Gameboy and popping your zits.
Forgive me, I was improperly responding to your typical penchant for personal attacks on me in the past in a post where you did not do so. My error. In retrospect, I do appreciate your willingness to engage in some substantive discussion, finally, and so I must properly presume that like me, you are taking the position of political, legal and social ignoramus as a deliberate "persona" presentation for didactic reasons, perhaps to begin a discussion for the lurkers who may not be so well educated as you and I from the foundational beginnings.Oh a personal attack. Wow...really? You're ideology and dogma doesn't stand up so you resort to the old personal attack. Predictable and pathetic.
So, let me rephrase with that in mind: "Not really, your arguments appear to be ignorant of fundamental legal, philosophical, political and social facts and arguments, so I hope I've been able to enlighten you as to how things actually are in the real world. With those facts in mind, I'm interested to see how your reasoning abilities work and the conclusions you draw from being educated in the basics."
I hope that's more acceptable.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- sandinista
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
- About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media? - Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
either way, semantics.Seth wrote: It's not your right to "do" drugs that's infringed upon, it's your right to POSSESS them that's regulated.
I disagree. The effects of the drug trade are a RESULT of the criminalization of drugs.Seth wrote:Bans on substances like pot or heroin are based on public policy considerations that address the secondary effects of the drug trade, like crime and addiction that creates policing and public safety problems for society.
It's also an argument from many many other political views besides libraianism.Seth wrote:I agree, it does sound a bit strange, and I'd agree with you that the government ought not be regulating what plants individuals can grow and consume, or to what extent. You'll find that such defense of liberty is a staunchly Libertarian argument
reference?Seth wrote:You are aware that under Stalin, and Castro, and other socialist/Marxist/Communist societies, individually growing pot can be a capital offense, right?
Funny, that's how I would describe capitalist states. Only the government is, in essence, the corporate class and what you do, when you do it, etc etc is dictated to you by class.Seth wrote:the government controls what you do, how you do it, when you do it, what you may own, where you live, what you can say and virtually every other aspect of your life
Not true. That's a propaganda fed view.Seth wrote:...in the interests of proletarian solidarity and to eliminate dangerous counterrevolutionary thoughts like "I have a right to enjoy the fruits of my labor" and "I have the right to think and speak as I please," and suchlike liberties that are dangerous to socialist ideology.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Almighty Unions
Assuming arguendo that you are correct, what solution do you propose? Please make your answer something more explanatory than "stop having what we do and when we do it dictated by class,"or words to that effect.sandinista wrote:
Funny, that's how I would describe capitalist states. Only the government is, in essence, the corporate class and what you do, when you do it, etc etc is dictated to you by class.
Re: The Almighty Unions
No, it's a serious distinction in law. You see, you don't have an absolute right to possess whatever you want in order to put it into your body...though you and I agree that perhaps you should.sandinista wrote:either way, semantics.Seth wrote: It's not your right to "do" drugs that's infringed upon, it's your right to POSSESS them that's regulated.
Seth wrote:Bans on substances like pot or heroin are based on public policy considerations that address the secondary effects of the drug trade, like crime and addiction that creates policing and public safety problems for society.
en uI disagree. The effects of the drug trade are a RESULT of the criminalization of drugs.
I happen to agree with you. But the legislature is the body that is empowered to make such judgments, and their judgment is presumptively constitutional until proven otherwise. And the fact is that the power to make such judgments has been upheld many times by the courts. The only way to change that is to change representatives, who can in turn change the law.
Seth wrote:I agree, it does sound a bit strange, and I'd agree with you that the government ought not be regulating what plants individuals can grow and consume, or to what extent. You'll find that such defense of liberty is a staunchly Libertarian argument
Well, I wouldn't say "many," and I certainly exclude all forms of socialism, which have as their fundamental precept a direct and explicit disregard for individual liberty and private property.It's also an argument from many many other political views besides libraianism.
Seth wrote:the government controls what you do, how you do it, when you do it, what you may own, where you live, what you can say and virtually every other aspect of your life
That would be an erroneous attribution. Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one.Funny, that's how I would describe capitalist states.
Class is not a function of capitalism.Only the government is, in essence, the corporate class and what you do, when you do it, etc etc is dictated to you by class.
Seth wrote:...in the interests of proletarian solidarity and to eliminate dangerous counterrevolutionary thoughts like "I have a right to enjoy the fruits of my labor" and "I have the right to think and speak as I please," and suchlike liberties that are dangerous to socialist ideology.
Absolutely true, as seen in places like Cuba and the Soviet Union. Indeed, as expounded by Marxists throughout history, such as Pol Pot in Cambodia.Not true. That's a propaganda fed view.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests