@AverageJoe1
Where's no1 when you need him, eh?
Think Locke, who said we have natural rights (life, liberty, property), we establish government to protect these rights, the establishment of said government implies a social contract exists whereby we are obligated to respect other's rights if we expect our own rights to be respected.
Or that's what I think Spruce is getting at anyway.
22d
@sleepyguy saidGovt protects rights of course.
@AverageJoe1
Where's no1 when you need him, eh?
Think Locke, who said we have natural rights (life, liberty, property), we establish government to protect these rights, the establishment of said government implies a social contract exists whereby we are obligated to respect other's rights if we expect our own rights to be respected.
Or that's what I think Spruce is getting at anyway.
Note you have said that we all must respect each other’s rights.,,,not protect. Big diffy. Maybe Spruce will step up and square this all away.We
22d
@averagejoe1 saidNo problem.
Govt protects rights of course.
Note you have said that we all must respect each other’s rights.,,,not protect. Big diffy. Maybe Spruce will step up and square this all away.We
If we only have to respect but NOT protect the rights of others, then people can opt out of supporting the government with tax dollars.
The only reason for everyone to be required to pay tax dollars to support a government is because we recognize a universal obligation to protect the rights of others.
Example: Libertarian A lives next to Libertarian B. Both respect each other's rights, but neither feels any duty to protect Helpless Woman C from Scum Bag D on the other side of town. Why should we? they say. We would have to pay taxes to support a police force and justice system which we claim not to need. We haven't done anything - why are we punished with taxes? Scum Bag D is HER problem.
Libertarians A and B agree to behave, but they feel no obligation to protect anyone or anyone's property but their own. So they say, 'Taxation is Theft!' and look forward to the government going away and leaving them alone.
But then Spruce shows up and tells them, "Sorry, guys. In addition to being obliged to respect the rights of others you are ALSO obliged to help protect the rights of all others in our society equally. So you can either form a posse to catch and punish Scum Bag D, or you can pay your taxes and help fund a government to catch them. Either will discharge your obligation. But you can't just ignore it when the rights of others are violated."
@spruce112358 saidI;m sory, I'm sorry, ...'libertarian lives next to libertarian''''? Would you rephrase this (I stopped after 'this'😉 )and make your point? Being a libertarian, or a muslim living next to each other, should set the stage, .....right? But what if a repub lives by a dem? Is that going to weigh on the piont you make which I did not bother to read??
No problem.
If we only have to respect but NOT protect the rights of others, then people can opt out of supporting the government with tax dollars.
The only reason for everyone to be required to pay tax dollars to support a government is because we recognize a universal obligation to protect the rights of others.
Example: Libertarian A lives next to Libertarian ...[text shortened]... ill discharge your obligation. But you can't just ignore it when the rights of others are violated."
You are digging on hell of a deep hole. How about 2 families live next door to each other, it could be me and Sonhouse.
So, take it an go with it, standing by.
22d
@spruce112358 saidAnd you never tell us from whence we are imbued with this 'obligation'. Why don't you just say empathy and be done with it? If I , for instance, went in there to help them, and saw a few lines of cocaine , I would shed my so- called obligations to protect these cretins, and go on my way. What would you do? Tell us, we want to know.
No problem.
If we only have to respect but NOT protect the rights of others, then people can opt out of supporting the government with tax dollars.
The only reason for everyone to be required to pay tax dollars to support a government is because we recognize a universal obligation to protect the rights of others.
Example: Libertarian A lives next to Libertarian ...[text shortened]... ill discharge your obligation. But you can't just ignore it when the rights of others are violated."
21d
@averagejoe1 saidWhere does your obligation to respect the rights of others come from? This comes from the same place. It's an axiom. We believe in it - or at least most of us do. As an individual, you are not required to believe in it, but you do have to accept it.
And you never tell us from whence we are imbued with this 'obligation'. Why don't you just say empathy and be done with it? If I , for instance, went in there to help them, and saw a few lines of cocaine , I would shed my so- called obligations to protect these cretins, and go on my way. What would you do? Tell us, we want to know.
It's not out of empathy. It is self-defense.
21d
@spruce112358 saidLibertarians are not full blown anarchists, there is a role for the state, police, justice, defense. You have a right to live your life free from force, threats of force and fraud, the state has a role in protecting those rights.
No problem.
If we only have to respect but NOT protect the rights of others, then people can opt out of supporting the government with tax dollars.
The only reason for everyone to be required to pay tax dollars to support a government is because we recognize a universal obligation to protect the rights of others.
Example: Libertarian A lives next to Libertarian ...[text shortened]... ill discharge your obligation. But you can't just ignore it when the rights of others are violated."
21d
@wajoma saidI sure wasn't an anarchist, but even suggesting 'the state has a role...' would get your jeered at as a 'statist' or 'liberal'. Then the party imploded and got taken over by fringy alt-Republicans - I assume with outside money.
Libertarians are not full blown anarchists, there is a role for the state, police, justice, defense. You have a right to live your life free from force, threats of force and fraud, the state has a role in protecting those rights.
21d
@sleepyguy saidI'll add that "education" is too often viewpoint-limited in the eyes of the rightthink establishment.
I think what some are identifying as disdain for education is actually disdain for left wing "educators" who take perfectly good young people and try turning them into bitter Marxists with gender dysphoria instead of successful happy people. Conservatives do value knowledge and skill, but modern universities have increasingly become an unsafe place to send your kids to get ...[text shortened]... Peterson, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman and son on, but I'll bet they don't count for some reason.
For example, during Covid, Follow The Science® meant agree with people like Ashish Jha and models built by Niels Ferguson, but not Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya, because The Science® didn't include anything that subscribed to a non-approved viewpoint.
21d
@sh76 saidScience can answer many questions effectively but it still proceeds from assumptions. If two scientists (Jha v. Bhattacharya) start from different assumptions, they will arrive 'scientifically' at different conclusions.
I'll add that "education" is too often viewpoint-limited in the eyes of the rightthink establishment.
For example, during Covid, Follow The Science® meant agree with people like Ashish Jha and models built by Niels Ferguson, but not Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya, because The Science® didn't include anything that subscribed to a non-approved viewpoint.
One set of assumptions says that if more people live longer, that's better.
The other assumes that large human die-offs are no big deal, and it is better not to impact the survivors quality of life.
@spruce112358 saidObviously, neither of those black/white assumptions is accurate or really represents anybody's viewpoint. The truth, of course, lies somewhere in between. Nobody takes the position that "large human die-offs are no big deal" but equally, nobody can take the position that a million people should suffer drastically reduced quality of life to give one 87 year old an extra 3 years of life.
Science can answer many questions effectively but it still proceeds from assumptions. If two scientists (Jha v. Bhattacharya) start from different assumptions, they will arrive 'scientifically' at different conclusions.
One set of assumptions says that if more people live longer, that's better.
The other assumes that large human die-offs are no big deal, and it is better not to impact the survivors quality of life.
Regardless, your post illustrates perfectly how "science" and "education" is almost by definition influenced by opinion, rendering the "you're anti-education or anti-science" cudgel used by many to attack those who disagree with them, as disingenuous nonsense.
21d
@spruce112358 saidJust out of curiosity, did it not at all bother you in the Spring of 2020 that The Science® told us that the college kids in Wisconsin who went to outdoor bars in May were death cultists but The Science® also explained to us that the George Floyd protests did almost nothing to spread covid?
Science can answer many questions effectively but it still proceeds from assumptions. If two scientists (Jha v. Bhattacharya) start from different assumptions, they will arrive 'scientifically' at different conclusions.
One set of assumptions says that if more people live longer, that's better.
The other assumes that large human die-offs are no big deal, and it is better not to impact the survivors quality of life.
Did you watch these things and say "oh, yeah; that makes sense"?
In June of 2020, when all of a sudden, nobody cared about covid anymore during the Floyd protests, a joke started gaining currency:
"Did you hear the joke about the cure for covid? It's a riot!"
Fine, I figured, so now we're over worrying about covid.
Then September came and with it, all of a sudden, the governor of New York was declaring red zones where houses of worship were shut down and gatherings were once again being prohibited. And I'm like, WTF?
And then these scumbag politicians and media authorities started trying to gaslight us into believing that the whole summer of free-for-all never happened. That CHAZ and CHOP and the mostly peaceful cities ablaze were all a figment of right wing imagination.
The scales fell from my eyes and, while I still certainly support some government activities when private enterprise can't manage them, I'll never trust the establishment (on things that matter) without verifying again.