Philosophy discussion
Politics
>
What Is The Limit to Personal Freedom?
Ii think what Tyler is saying Nanette is we need to separate the mentally ill from the other homeless who have lost their job who are not mentally ill, and also the homeless who choose to live on the streets, it is not a one size fits all solution to this huge problem.
Hi Robin --Robin wrote: "Ii think what Tyler is saying Nanette is we need to separate the mentally ill from the other homeless ...
Yes, Robin, the point I had made when I was asked is more or less exactly that, that the problem should be broken down into several smaller problems.
Homelessness all by itself should be looked at as a single problem, then whatever other problems the homeless cause or suffer from can be dealt with case by case.
Here I think it's important not to fall into a trap that leads people to throw up their hands and conclude the problem is so vast that it's unsolvable. That will lead to a sense of hopelessness. If we instead look at homelessness as a series of related problems, we'll start seeing the problem(s) as ones that actually can be solved.
Nanette wrote: "What I see here is a clash of world views and the bull-headed mindset to reject a person's experience..the experience encompasses all aspects. not just what happens in the shelter."
I don't see it as rejecting experience, but as having a different view of or reaction to experience.
For example. I am very allergic to vinegar. If I eat any, even a small amount, I get quite ill. So I have to be very careful of what I eat, particularly in restaurants or going out to dinner (I've given up even trying to eat at pot lucks).
My experience is that vinegar is a very dangerous substance. I hope you can agree that that's a legitimate conclusion for me to draw from my experience. But you may enjoy vinaigrette dressing, and even say that it's a very healthy way to enjoy salads. If you do, and say so, should I get upset because you are rejecting my experience? I don't think so. My experience is valid, and legitimate. But it shouldn't color the way you view things. (But if you ever invite me over to dinner and feed me vinegar, THEN I'll have a right to be upset at you for rejecting my exerience!)
Hi Nanette --I wil leave the group so that will quash all ideas that I USED your one-sided bossy group (YOU) to promote my book.in fact, EVERYONE in the group: DON'T read my book...okay, Tyler.
Nobody is asking you to leave. While I've banned other authors who have come here only to promote their books, I have not banned you. As long as you're also participating in the group, which you have been, then you're fine. That's why I've left your posts up, including your discussion of your book.
I don't mean to sound "bossy" or like "king shit," as you say. If that's how I come across, other members would notice that as well, so I hope this isn't the case.
My concern remains the highly personal way you handle your topic. It's a concern only because this is a philosophy forum, and the whole point of it is for people to want to discuss things more expansively and objectively -- that is, at a higher level of thinking than they would be able to do in other groups. For example, you say ...
There are people in my building who will vouch for the fact that they are on welfare for more than 5 years. I can't stand your arrogance.
You say I'm arrogant because I said welfare had been limited to a five year period and I didn't know how recipients got around that. But your answer, that certain people you know personally will vouch for the fact that it happens, doesn't explain to me how they're getting around the five-year limit. Calling me arrogant for asking doesn't answer the question, either.
Fine, I will leave. By the way I got A+ in philosophy in university and one of my papers was used to teach the professor's next semester.
Again, nobody is saying you have to leave. All I've asked you to do is support what you claim. But if you've made an A+ in philosophy and you're not using it, that assuredly gives me a right to question your motives for posting in the style you have up to now.
If your only response is to get personal, then you're either not thinking clearly or deliberately avoiding simple questions about which you're claiming special knowledge.
Nanette wrote: "so, what crime have you committed? I have not committed one. "I haven't followed you around all day, and I don't know in what jurisdiction you live, so I don't know specifically, but here are some possibilities.
If you drove to work this morning, was there never a moment when you drove even one mile per hour over the speed limit? Did you make a full and complete stop at every stop sign? If you changed lanes on the highway, did you signal your lane change the required amount of time and distance before making the change? (Do you even know exactly what the required time and/or distance are in your jurisdiction? I don't.)
If you bicycled to work, did you come to a full stop, foot down, at every stop sign? If you walked, did you cross the street only in legal cross walks, did you wait for the light to turn green or the walk sign to come on before setting foot on the roadway, did you not begin to cross when the don't walk sign started flashing?
Did you put anything that might be recyclable in the trash? In some jurisdictions, that's a crime. If you are an employer, are you sure you are complying with every single standard of law, including giving every employee all the breaks they are entitled to at the times they're entitled to them, having the correct posters properly displayed in an appropriate location, complying with every single regulation from OSHA and your state equivalent (I have never known of an OSHA inspection of a workplace that didn't turn up a single violation, and I don't think there ever has been or will be one).
If you found a penny in the street, did you turn it in to the nearest police station?
If your state has a state sales tax, did you buy a boo or anything else from an out of state company that they didn't charge the sales tax on, and if so did you file a use tax return on your purchase and pay the use tax on it? Almost all states with sales taxes require this.
These are just a few for starters. I could to on for hours. The reality is that there are so many laws governing our lives these days that the chance that anybody can go through a day without violating at least one of them is asymptotically close to zero .
Hello all!Wow! Quite a lively session.
And, we won't even mention corporate and military welfare!
Yet, shall we parse logic itself, here? Is only deductive logic allowed? Or is inductive logic and critical thinking okay?
?
The particular to the general. And, the particular to the general to 'abstraction.' Yes . . . "Discussions" generally do follow.
Alas!
I'm glad the point was made to "separate" (argumentation by 'class') the different 'species' and degrees of homeless. This would necesitate, fortunately for clarity and unfortunately for verbosity, three separate threads of 'discussion.'
While I'm touching on this topic, I can't help but humbly request that we make the distinction between 'rhetoric' and 'sophistical rhetoric—especially these days . . . with so much of the sophistical kind 'zinging' about.
Speaking of which . . . I can't help but whisper out Twain's wonderful observation: "There are lies. Damn lies. And then, there are statistics."
I hope these questions/observations are helpful . . .
—R.a.
R. A. Whatever you care to comment on is fine. Whatever philosophical view you take, and whatever pertains to the thread in which it is displayed.
If we look first at homelessness as such, we get back to an interesting question. If the U.S. Constitution doesn't enumerate something as a right, can Congress legally make it one? That is, can Americans gain rights that weren't in the Constitution in the first place. Of course, this applies to governments in any country, not just the U.S. -- can rights be "created" in Britain, Canada or Australia in a similar way?There is a line of reasoning concerning the American political system that no "rights" can be added to the ones already outlined, and a news article I came across this morning on the election campaign reminded me of that.
+++++
R.a. --
This would necesitate, fortunately for clarity and unfortunately for verbosity, three separate threads of 'discussion.
If we look at some of the effects of homelessness, such as the public behavior among some of them, it really does, as you say, make sense to treat that as a separate issue. At what point does anybody's public conduct become an infringement on other people's freedom? What we have here is actually a new topic related to the limits of personal freedom.
Yes, and some of the homeless are limiting personal freedom in the aftorementioned shop owners of conducting business, and also of people walking on sidewalks, or someone squeeging their windows. Maybe it is unconstitutional to try to impose new laws, but wasn't the constitution written at the beginning of the colonies which at the time amounted to thirteen. I think it should be ratified, but I wouldn't know how to go about doing that.
Hi Robin --the homeless are limiting personal freedom in the aftorementioned shop owners of conducting business, and also of people walking on sidewalks, or someone squeeging their windows.
The problems you mention sound like disorderly conduct and harassment (in the case of squeegeeing someone's car). If that's correct, my question would be: Why aren't those laws being enforced?
I think it should be ratified, but I wouldn't know how to go about doing that.
What should be ratified? I apologize -- I don't quite follow.
Rights are something quite different than laws.
(New laws are written and put into effect all the time.
Though they aren't always enforced.)
(New laws are written and put into effect all the time.
Though they aren't always enforced.)
Hi Adelle --That gets us to an interesting question we should have asked before: What is a "right" in the first place?
For example, is it something that comes from some necessity? Or does it come from human nature -- how we are as human beings? Or are rights just legal contrivances?
In short, where do rights come from?
Well, in the Declaration, "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..."
Which seems to say that American rights come from God (the Creator)
Which humanists would perhaps argue are natural rights which a human being should have just by the fact that he is a human being
But I think a case could be made that the phrase was a mere rhetorical device...proclaiming these rights as God-given and beyond the legal law of the king...because a legal case could not in fact be made to break the colonies away from Great Britain.
I haven't given it thought. But I do know that rights and laws are not the same thing. Rights exist whether there are laws that back them up or not.
If we're not talking physical laws, ("Gravity. It's not just a good idea. It's the Law.")
if we're talking legal laws, those are man-made. I tend to think that rights are not man-made. I tend to believe they are established by a deeper source.
And moral laws would be another perspective altogether.
Others may have another take.
Which seems to say that American rights come from God (the Creator)
Which humanists would perhaps argue are natural rights which a human being should have just by the fact that he is a human being
But I think a case could be made that the phrase was a mere rhetorical device...proclaiming these rights as God-given and beyond the legal law of the king...because a legal case could not in fact be made to break the colonies away from Great Britain.
I haven't given it thought. But I do know that rights and laws are not the same thing. Rights exist whether there are laws that back them up or not.
If we're not talking physical laws, ("Gravity. It's not just a good idea. It's the Law.")
if we're talking legal laws, those are man-made. I tend to think that rights are not man-made. I tend to believe they are established by a deeper source.
And moral laws would be another perspective altogether.
Others may have another take.
There are no "rights." We decide what a "right" will be in a society, and then we proceed to argue about its limitations. In America, we owe most of our "rights" to our Founding Fathers. We were lucky to have such an intelligent group of men leading our young country. It could have all gone down the drain if George Washington decided he wanted to have more power. He probably could have destroyed the entire process. At the other extreme, individual states could have broken away and caused a group of fragmented nations. There is no God, and there are no "God given rights." The writers and those who influenced them were mostly deists and could just as easily have chosen some other words. They weren't handed any gold tablets. They wrote it themselves.
I read it. Give me one "right" given to us by God.
I don't care to argue with you. You just come off as arrogant, and I don't wish to engage.
Jimmy wrote: The writers and those who influenced them were mostly deists
I keep reading and hearing that these days. Perhaps a number of them were. John Adams wasn't a deist. Nor was Samuel Adams.
John Adams: "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature."
Samuel Adams:
II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.
The right to freedom being the gift of the Almighty...The rights of the colonists as Christians...may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutions of The Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.
In his Last Will and Testament he wrote:
Principally, and first of all, I resign my soul to the Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying on the merits of Jesus Christ for the pardon of my sins."
But even if they were all deists, deists believed in a creator...albeit a creator who perhaps set the world in motion and then didn't interfere.
I think, too, in considering the founding fathers, that we must remember and give some weight to the fact that they opened their sessions with prayer.
And the times they lived in was probably of some importance. From 1740 to about 1750 was the Great Awakening. Which some studies cite as a large influence in bringing about the mind set that led to the American Revolution.
The point being that whether Christian or Deist, the founders were holding that their "rights" were not man-established.
and could just as easily have chosen some other words
But in point of fact they DIDN'T choose some other words. They wrote, and edited, and voted on the words...and those were the words they ultimately chose for the document that they KNEW they were writing with an eye toward history.
We decide what a "right" will be in a society, and then we proceed to argue about its limitations.
mmm, maybe it's semantics, but I still think that's more a definition of laws. OK, those are "legal rights," as in "I know my rights! I have the right to remain silent."
But I was thinking the original question was along the lines of What rights do we have as human beings? Because we're not mere animals, what rights do humans have?
Some might believe these rights come from God; some might believe that they come from Nature.
And that many laws are in fact institued to safeguard these rights from those that might wish to ignore the rights of their fellow humans.
But a fair share of the question comes down to is "By what Authority?"
Rights from God made a good argument for centuries, as God is Eternal, and therfore the rights would be eternally rights.
Rights from Nature made for many a good argument, as Nature during the Enlightenment implied proper order, a system, maybe more.
Rights acquired through the efforts of mankind...those can't be thought of as solid...because what man has given, man can take away.
So some firm basis...God...Nature...maybe respect for the Law... some firm basis must underlie rights.
Yes? No?
Give me one "right" given to us by God.
Good thing you only asked for one!
God gave us life. Which just happens to be the first right stated in the Declaration: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
I keep reading and hearing that these days. Perhaps a number of them were. John Adams wasn't a deist. Nor was Samuel Adams.
John Adams: "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature."
Samuel Adams:
II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.
The right to freedom being the gift of the Almighty...The rights of the colonists as Christians...may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutions of The Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.
In his Last Will and Testament he wrote:
Principally, and first of all, I resign my soul to the Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying on the merits of Jesus Christ for the pardon of my sins."
But even if they were all deists, deists believed in a creator...albeit a creator who perhaps set the world in motion and then didn't interfere.
I think, too, in considering the founding fathers, that we must remember and give some weight to the fact that they opened their sessions with prayer.
And the times they lived in was probably of some importance. From 1740 to about 1750 was the Great Awakening. Which some studies cite as a large influence in bringing about the mind set that led to the American Revolution.
The point being that whether Christian or Deist, the founders were holding that their "rights" were not man-established.
and could just as easily have chosen some other words
But in point of fact they DIDN'T choose some other words. They wrote, and edited, and voted on the words...and those were the words they ultimately chose for the document that they KNEW they were writing with an eye toward history.
We decide what a "right" will be in a society, and then we proceed to argue about its limitations.
mmm, maybe it's semantics, but I still think that's more a definition of laws. OK, those are "legal rights," as in "I know my rights! I have the right to remain silent."
But I was thinking the original question was along the lines of What rights do we have as human beings? Because we're not mere animals, what rights do humans have?
Some might believe these rights come from God; some might believe that they come from Nature.
And that many laws are in fact institued to safeguard these rights from those that might wish to ignore the rights of their fellow humans.
But a fair share of the question comes down to is "By what Authority?"
Rights from God made a good argument for centuries, as God is Eternal, and therfore the rights would be eternally rights.
Rights from Nature made for many a good argument, as Nature during the Enlightenment implied proper order, a system, maybe more.
Rights acquired through the efforts of mankind...those can't be thought of as solid...because what man has given, man can take away.
So some firm basis...God...Nature...maybe respect for the Law... some firm basis must underlie rights.
Yes? No?
Give me one "right" given to us by God.
Good thing you only asked for one!
God gave us life. Which just happens to be the first right stated in the Declaration: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
But Jimmy was right about this country being fortunate to have had the founding fathers that we had. Especially his observation about GW. George III had said something to the effect, when he heard that GW had stepped down, that IF it were true that George Washington must be the greatest man ever.
As Jimmy pointed out, Washington could so easily have stayed in power...a good portion of the people probably hoped that he would. But he left of his own accord, leaving an example for all the presidents that followed to follow.
Yes, they had their flaws, but they were great men, weren't they?
As Jimmy pointed out, Washington could so easily have stayed in power...a good portion of the people probably hoped that he would. But he left of his own accord, leaving an example for all the presidents that followed to follow.
Yes, they had their flaws, but they were great men, weren't they?
Yes, they were all great men, and what they did for our country is an immeasurable feat of courage and fortitude.
'God gave us life. Which just happens to be the first right stated in the Declaration: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. 'I wonder where in the Bible your god gives the right to liberty and the right to pursue happiness. As far as I know that Middle-Eastern age-old book, happiness is not a priority, less so liberty. The people who wrote the Bible where dealing with their own local situation and that particular era. Transferring that particular local approach of nation building through theocratic principles to this age is an anachronism.
Stefan wrote: "'God gave us life. Which just happens to be the first right stated in the Declaration: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. '
I wonder where in the Bible your god gives the right to liberty and happiness..."
No, no,lol,...only "life." Jimmy only asked for 1; I only gave him one. And of course if person is an atheist, he wouldn't credit even life to God. The question was worded so that I could respond as I did.
Some people are religious; some aren't. The issue, I think, is not "Is there a god/is there not a god?" The issue is rights, and what the source of rights is.
I think that the founding fathers--Deist or Christian---held that our rights came from the Creator. Anyway, that's what they said.
Numerous people aren't Deist or Christian. And then the discussion would turn, I would think, to a consideration of where/from what source they think our rights came from.
Interesting discussion either way.
I wonder where in the Bible your god gives the right to liberty and happiness..."
No, no,lol,...only "life." Jimmy only asked for 1; I only gave him one. And of course if person is an atheist, he wouldn't credit even life to God. The question was worded so that I could respond as I did.
Some people are religious; some aren't. The issue, I think, is not "Is there a god/is there not a god?" The issue is rights, and what the source of rights is.
I think that the founding fathers--Deist or Christian---held that our rights came from the Creator. Anyway, that's what they said.
Numerous people aren't Deist or Christian. And then the discussion would turn, I would think, to a consideration of where/from what source they think our rights came from.
Interesting discussion either way.
I had to come back. I was thinking ONLY of the "Name 1 right" line.
But Stephan has a good point. If the founding fathers, as they said, put forward our rights as "from the Creator,"
Well... from a strictly Biblical point of view, "liberty" "the pursuit of happiness" those would be challenging arguments to make.
What a great point to think on.
But Stephan has a good point. If the founding fathers, as they said, put forward our rights as "from the Creator,"
Well... from a strictly Biblical point of view, "liberty" "the pursuit of happiness" those would be challenging arguments to make.
What a great point to think on.
Adelle, Thank you for responding to my comments without the name calling. I'll see if I can explain my opinion to you.
I asked for one god given right because I thought it would be easier to discuss one right. I could have gone to the other extreme and asked you to list all of the rights that you believe are God given. Are there any rights you believe are not God given? Could you make two lists of those which are and those which are not?
Let's take the right to life. There are close to 7 billion people in the world. I believe they were produced by sexual reproduction. I don't understand saying God gave them life. Once you bring God into the picture, you add so many unwanted issues that don't belong. Are you saying God "created" each and every one of them? Could you tell him to stop please because they are strangling our planet.
Did God create all of the babies that died at birth or shortly thereafter, many in great suffering? Did God allow birth defects, some of which are beyond our ability to even imagine? You see my point is that bringing God into the picture also brings a whole host of other problems.
The phrase you most often refer to is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This is in the Declaration of Independence, written mostly by Jefferson and the influence of others. Jefferson's religious beliefs are in tune with deism. Just look them up, but even if you disagree it doesn't matter. Because they are still words written on a paper, incredible words, but words just the same. The main point is the meaning of the words and how we use them today and in the future.
Now I am sure you already know that Jefferson was just rewriting a phrase from John Locke. With advice from Ben Franklin and other sources. What does God have to do with it? Are you saying it was divinely inspired? Are you saying God spoke to them? All of them?
Authorities use the name of God to add more power and meaning to their pronouncements. It has been done by kings and queens, dictators, religious leaders, prophets, and founding fathers. Am I supposed to believe them all? Am I suppose to pick and choose?
Muhammad went into the desert and spoke to God. He wrote the Koran. Do you believe him? Is the Koran divinely inspired? He says Jesus is not the son of God: there can be only one God. Do you believe him? Who am I supposed to believe?
I heard Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell speaking, both claiming to be a part of "God's plan." Just because they say it, does not mean it is true. Same for anyone else.
Slavery is defended in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. It took thousand of years to make much progress against slavery. We still have it today, just mostly in different guises. So it was considered a right to own a slave. That right has changed. We continue to fight for an end of all slavery.
When I say there are no rights, I tried to explain that we create our rights, we decide what rights we are to have, and then we disagree about them and the details about them. We now have the right to vote for all adults above the age of 18. At one time women couldn't vote, people of color couldn't vote, young people under age 21 couldn't vote. Rights change. They can progress forward or they can be set back.
Jimmy, What a post to grapple with! I don't know that I can come up with answers to your questions---but they're worthy questions. I would like to try to come up with responses. Give me 'til tomorrow night. lol Like I can up come with a philosophy overnight! Still, it would be good for me to wrestle with your questions, even if my posting is ultimately inadequate---which it will be. OK, post to you tomorrow.
Tyler wrote: "If we look first at homelessness as such, we get back to an interesting question. If the U.S. Constitution doesn't enumerate something as a right, can Congress legally make it one? "Yes, they can. But not a permanent right -- a later Congress could also remove it as a right. Only the Constitution's rights are permanent (until the Constitution is amended).
Jimmy wrote: "I hope I'm not, but so be it."Don't fret, Jimmy. That's Robin's basic response when she's faced with an argument she can't answer but doesn't want to admit it. She's used it before, will doubtless use it again. It's not you.
Jimmy wrote: "There are no "rights." We decide what a "right" will be in a society, and then we proceed to argue about its limitations. "In one sense you're right. Each society does decide what it will accept as rights.
In another sense, you may or may not be right. We can't know what absolute rights we may have as humans. That we can't identify a source of rights that you will accept doesn't mean that there isn't such a source -- the old logical point that the absence of proof isn't a proof of absence.
But each society does decide not only what rights (if any) its members have, but also what the source of its rights is. In saying "We hold these rights..." the "we hold" is as important as the "these rights." For that society at that time and for those people establishing those right, they did indeed come from God. In other societies, rights might be accepted as coming from a king or absolute ruler, or they may accept the concept of "natural rights" which just arise from nature itself. Many atheists, for example, do believe that humans do have certain rights. And some societies might not have any rights at all; I'm not sure whether a true Marxist society would accept the existence of any absolute rights of its members.
You don't need to accept that rights necessarily come from God, but I think you do need to accept that the rights that are enshrined in the Constitution were understood by those who wrote it as coming from God.
Interesting declensions . . .Or . . . are they typical?
Hmmmmm.
The ghosts of Gogol, Dostoevsky, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Marx, and Nietzsche are near, I think.
". . . life, liberty, and the pursuit of property . . ." —John Locke.
". . . life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . ." —Thomas Jefferson.
Oh! That Enlightened Jefferson!
By the way, where IS that Tom Paine? Oh yeah! They couldn't find him . . .
To Jimmy, Post 126, Part 1 of 2.
Jimmy, I’ve read your post over a couple of times. My answers—even such incomplete answers as I have--- would take longer than your questions. I’ve decided to put about an hour or two into my post. Very obviously that means I won’t get to all your individual questions with anything more than “surface: I’ll just have to see how far I get and say “Gut genug.”
Let me say first that the positive that I see in your post is that it brought me up short, bringing home to me that ---smile---especially on a logic thread---that it would be good if I could make some sort of defense for what I say.
As you put time into your post here I’m making the assumption that you’re asking sincerely what I think. I’ll answer accordingly.
I asked for one god given right because I thought it would be easier to discuss one right. I could have gone to the other extreme and asked you to list all of the rights that you believe are God given. Are there any rights you believe are not God given? Could you make two lists of those which are and those which are not?
It wouldn’t be possible for me to list all the rights that I believe are God given. I don’t know what they all are. It probably takes a philosophy degree or a theology degree to have given the matter enough thought. I’m a regular person leading a regular life and I’m not devoting time to that subject. I suppose that I go through life well enough satisfied with my legal rights (laws) that I don’t feel the need to dig deeper in that area.
But, to address what I think is at the heart of your question, yes, I do believe that basic rights (as opposed to legal laws or legal rights) are God given/Creator given. Others might believe that basic rights are human rights….deserved just by the fact that we are humans. (Me, I’m pretty sure that comes down to the same thing.)
Because from my point of view, such rights exist whether the legal laws of the time or culture support them or not. In various times and places, there weren’t laws against “an authority” (king, government, wealthy noble who wanted something his neighbor had) to send his men bursting into a man’s home to carry off the man or the man’s possessions without due process. But it was “wrong” on a basic level, the man had a “right” to not to be so abused whether there were laws in place that would support that position or not.
And laws/legal rights that men have established in one time and place can be changed by other men in another time and place. They’re transitory. I think that’s what I’m getting at. From my POV, a right is always a right. Regardless of what the law says.
So men cannot be the source of rights. Men draft laws. And then they draft other laws.
I can understand that some people come at rights from a humanist point of view. Again, that there are rights that all people have simply by the fact that they’re human. And I’ll grant that that is somewhat deeper than mere laws.
Let's take the right to life. There are close to 7 billion people in the world. I believe they were produced by sexual reproduction. I don't understand saying God gave them life.
I would say that sexual reproduction is the process by which those 7 billion people came to be in the world. All nice and scientific.
Once you bring God into the picture, you add so many unwanted issues that don't belong.
Should we avoid issues simply because they’re “unwanted.?” How does considering alternative answers to what the source of our rights is not belong in a discussion about what the source of our rights is? (Ah, Jimmy, this is merely a rhetorical question. I have another life to return to that takes up my time, too. Your post, though, was good for me. Thank you.)
Are you saying God "created" each and every one of them? Could you tell him to stop please because they are strangling our planet.
No, no. Sexual reproduction, now generally a choice, is directly responsible for those people. You’ll have to make a plea to your fellow humans and convince them to have fewer children if you want to reduce the population.
Did God create all of the babies that died at birth or shortly thereafter, many in great suffering? Did God allow birth defects, some of which are beyond our ability to even imagine? You see my point is that bringing God into the picture also brings a whole host of other problems.
Jimmy, you asked too many questions in one post. I’m responding with shorter and shorter answers. Lol At least I think I am.
I don’t think God created those babies. I believe He was responsible for Life…not for lives. There are birth defects, so I think it obvious that God “allows” birth defects. But that’s not the same thing as causing birth defects. Perhaps those were caused by human choices….individual or from pollution caused by society, etc. Why would you expect God to step in and make everything nice for us in this world? That’s not the point of God. If you believe in God. And what happens to free choice if God steps in and takes care of everything?
The phrase you most often refer to is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This is in the Declaration of Independence, written mostly by Jefferson and the influence of others. Jefferson's religious beliefs are in tune with deism. Just look them up, but even if you disagree it doesn't matter. Because they are still words written on a paper, incredible words, but words just the same. The main point is the meaning of the words and how we use them today and in the future.
Yes, I agree, Jefferson mostly wrote the Declarations; Jefferson was a Deist. He didn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus so he cut out everything he didn’t want from his Bible and rebuilt his Bible the way he wanted it to be.
Now I am sure you already know that Jefferson was just rewriting a phrase from John Locke. With advice from Ben Franklin and other sources. What does God have to do with it? Are you saying it was divinely inspired? Are you saying God spoke to them? All of them?
No, actually I didn’t know that…I just knew that Jefferson was influenced by Locke and that much of what Jefferson wrote was lifted from others and perhaps polished a little by him.
I can’t get into the minds of others. All I have is the knowledge that they had prayers prior to their debates, and I have their words: “by their Creator” which gives me the impression that they felt that their Creator was involved.
Jimmy, I’ve read your post over a couple of times. My answers—even such incomplete answers as I have--- would take longer than your questions. I’ve decided to put about an hour or two into my post. Very obviously that means I won’t get to all your individual questions with anything more than “surface: I’ll just have to see how far I get and say “Gut genug.”
Let me say first that the positive that I see in your post is that it brought me up short, bringing home to me that ---smile---especially on a logic thread---that it would be good if I could make some sort of defense for what I say.
As you put time into your post here I’m making the assumption that you’re asking sincerely what I think. I’ll answer accordingly.
I asked for one god given right because I thought it would be easier to discuss one right. I could have gone to the other extreme and asked you to list all of the rights that you believe are God given. Are there any rights you believe are not God given? Could you make two lists of those which are and those which are not?
It wouldn’t be possible for me to list all the rights that I believe are God given. I don’t know what they all are. It probably takes a philosophy degree or a theology degree to have given the matter enough thought. I’m a regular person leading a regular life and I’m not devoting time to that subject. I suppose that I go through life well enough satisfied with my legal rights (laws) that I don’t feel the need to dig deeper in that area.
But, to address what I think is at the heart of your question, yes, I do believe that basic rights (as opposed to legal laws or legal rights) are God given/Creator given. Others might believe that basic rights are human rights….deserved just by the fact that we are humans. (Me, I’m pretty sure that comes down to the same thing.)
Because from my point of view, such rights exist whether the legal laws of the time or culture support them or not. In various times and places, there weren’t laws against “an authority” (king, government, wealthy noble who wanted something his neighbor had) to send his men bursting into a man’s home to carry off the man or the man’s possessions without due process. But it was “wrong” on a basic level, the man had a “right” to not to be so abused whether there were laws in place that would support that position or not.
And laws/legal rights that men have established in one time and place can be changed by other men in another time and place. They’re transitory. I think that’s what I’m getting at. From my POV, a right is always a right. Regardless of what the law says.
So men cannot be the source of rights. Men draft laws. And then they draft other laws.
I can understand that some people come at rights from a humanist point of view. Again, that there are rights that all people have simply by the fact that they’re human. And I’ll grant that that is somewhat deeper than mere laws.
Let's take the right to life. There are close to 7 billion people in the world. I believe they were produced by sexual reproduction. I don't understand saying God gave them life.
I would say that sexual reproduction is the process by which those 7 billion people came to be in the world. All nice and scientific.
Once you bring God into the picture, you add so many unwanted issues that don't belong.
Should we avoid issues simply because they’re “unwanted.?” How does considering alternative answers to what the source of our rights is not belong in a discussion about what the source of our rights is? (Ah, Jimmy, this is merely a rhetorical question. I have another life to return to that takes up my time, too. Your post, though, was good for me. Thank you.)
Are you saying God "created" each and every one of them? Could you tell him to stop please because they are strangling our planet.
No, no. Sexual reproduction, now generally a choice, is directly responsible for those people. You’ll have to make a plea to your fellow humans and convince them to have fewer children if you want to reduce the population.
Did God create all of the babies that died at birth or shortly thereafter, many in great suffering? Did God allow birth defects, some of which are beyond our ability to even imagine? You see my point is that bringing God into the picture also brings a whole host of other problems.
Jimmy, you asked too many questions in one post. I’m responding with shorter and shorter answers. Lol At least I think I am.
I don’t think God created those babies. I believe He was responsible for Life…not for lives. There are birth defects, so I think it obvious that God “allows” birth defects. But that’s not the same thing as causing birth defects. Perhaps those were caused by human choices….individual or from pollution caused by society, etc. Why would you expect God to step in and make everything nice for us in this world? That’s not the point of God. If you believe in God. And what happens to free choice if God steps in and takes care of everything?
The phrase you most often refer to is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This is in the Declaration of Independence, written mostly by Jefferson and the influence of others. Jefferson's religious beliefs are in tune with deism. Just look them up, but even if you disagree it doesn't matter. Because they are still words written on a paper, incredible words, but words just the same. The main point is the meaning of the words and how we use them today and in the future.
Yes, I agree, Jefferson mostly wrote the Declarations; Jefferson was a Deist. He didn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus so he cut out everything he didn’t want from his Bible and rebuilt his Bible the way he wanted it to be.
Now I am sure you already know that Jefferson was just rewriting a phrase from John Locke. With advice from Ben Franklin and other sources. What does God have to do with it? Are you saying it was divinely inspired? Are you saying God spoke to them? All of them?
No, actually I didn’t know that…I just knew that Jefferson was influenced by Locke and that much of what Jefferson wrote was lifted from others and perhaps polished a little by him.
I can’t get into the minds of others. All I have is the knowledge that they had prayers prior to their debates, and I have their words: “by their Creator” which gives me the impression that they felt that their Creator was involved.
To Jimmy, Post 126, Part 2 of 2.
Authorities use the name of God to add more power and meaning to their pronouncements. It has been done by kings and queens, dictators, religious leaders, prophets, and founding fathers. Am I supposed to believe them all? Am I suppose to pick and choose?
I’m inclined to believe that a large part of why they based their Declaration of Rights on “their Creator” was indeed to add more power and meaning to their pronouncements. They were lawyers. If they could have made a strictly legal case, maybe they would have done that. But where would their case be heard? In English courts. There was indeed a distinct advantage to getting their case outside the current legal system. That in and of itself doesn’t speak to what they believed one way or the other. But I agree that it helped their case.
Yes, you are supposed to pick and choose. If it’s an important issue to you, and if the issue that has meaning in your life, then yes, you’re supposed to give it thought and decided which ones you’re going to believe.
Oh, Jimmy, I’m fast running out of time.
Muhammad went into the desert and spoke to God. He wrote the Koran. Do you believe him? Is the Koran divinely inspired? He says Jesus is not the son of God: there can be only one God. Do you believe him?
Who am I supposed to believe?
I can’t answer that question for you. It’s your life. That is something you will have decide for yourself.
I heard Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell speaking, both claiming to be a part of "God's plan." Just because they say it, does not mean it is true. Same for anyone else.
I’m totally with you on this one. Just because someone says something does not mean it is true. Nor does it mean that it is not true.
Slavery is defended in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. It took thousand of years to make much progress against slavery. We still have it today, just mostly in different guises. So it was considered a right to own a slave. That right has changed. We continue to fight for an end of all slavery.
I would hold that it wasn’t a right. Merely that it was legal at the time.
When I say there are no rights, I tried to explain that we create our rights, we decide what rights we are to have, and then we disagree about them and the details about them. We now have the right to vote for all adults above the age of 18. At one time women couldn't vote, people of color couldn't vote, young people under age 21 couldn't vote. Rights change. They can progress forward or they can be set back.
Again, this might just be a matter of semantics. I hold that there are absolute rights that exist whether there are laws, i.e. legal rights, that support those rights or not. And we argue about both: we argue and discuss “rights” to discover what they are; we argue and discuss laws (legal rights) to decide what they are going to be…for the time being. We have a law that holds that citizens about the age of 18 can vote. (Personally, this very much of a “law” … the age of 18 seems somewhat arbitrary. It could just as easily have been 17 or 21 or some other societal agreed upon age.) We have a law the holds that women, people of color have the vote. (Personally, this seems to me to fall into the rights category. I’m not a theologian or a lawyer. Maybe this is just a law. But my gut feeling is that it is a right.)
Again, maybe it’s just semantics. I don’t believe rights change. Laws change. Laws, I can see, can move to a closer approximation of what our rights are, or they can move further (mmm farther?) away from what our rights are.
Oh, God, I’m gone on so long. But your post was not set up for a quick response. Heck (I toned down my language), your post requires books and books and books.
Oh, good, God is now back in my post. And really, I think I have to return here because it seems that God/Creator vs. No God/No Creator is a subtext of your post.
So let me address that just quick like. I do believe in a Creator. And for me personally, that would be God. But a Creator in any case. And I have to believe that on the basis of rational reasons. In this day and age, those Kierkegaarian leaps of faith are harder to come by. THIS I have put some thought into.
Yes, by and large, it seems to me, that Creationists base their beliefs on faith: i.e., that God created the heavens and the earth. And we don’t have to explain God: He’s God. And God is, almost by definition, unexplainable, and beyond the understanding of man.
But, it seems to me that evolutionists ALSO base their beliefs on faith. Faith in science. And science has led back pretty darn conclusively to the Big Bang. Well and good. But science can’t say where that first tiny, tiny, tiny speck that banged up came from. And science says you can’t create something out of nothing. And science, by definition, HAS to obey the laws of science. So, to me, it seems that science has a pretty logical explanation for millions/billions of years of existence. BUT, a scientific theory should be premised on a sound fact. Science seemingly can go back to the almost-almost beginning, to that tiny speck (Step 2). And then, because it can’t scientifically explain how/where that speck came from (Step 1){a speck that CANNOT exist, scientifically, out of nothing}, it has to, in effect say, OK, let’s just start with Step 2. We scientists have faith that that speck was there. And we can’t or don’t want to explain how it got there. But Science should be, almost by definition, explainable. We are after all discussing Logic.
OK, Jimmy, I may not be “right” …lol…er, correct, but I paid you the respect of trying to address your points. Hope you have a good day.
Authorities use the name of God to add more power and meaning to their pronouncements. It has been done by kings and queens, dictators, religious leaders, prophets, and founding fathers. Am I supposed to believe them all? Am I suppose to pick and choose?
I’m inclined to believe that a large part of why they based their Declaration of Rights on “their Creator” was indeed to add more power and meaning to their pronouncements. They were lawyers. If they could have made a strictly legal case, maybe they would have done that. But where would their case be heard? In English courts. There was indeed a distinct advantage to getting their case outside the current legal system. That in and of itself doesn’t speak to what they believed one way or the other. But I agree that it helped their case.
Yes, you are supposed to pick and choose. If it’s an important issue to you, and if the issue that has meaning in your life, then yes, you’re supposed to give it thought and decided which ones you’re going to believe.
Oh, Jimmy, I’m fast running out of time.
Muhammad went into the desert and spoke to God. He wrote the Koran. Do you believe him? Is the Koran divinely inspired? He says Jesus is not the son of God: there can be only one God. Do you believe him?
Who am I supposed to believe?
I can’t answer that question for you. It’s your life. That is something you will have decide for yourself.
I heard Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell speaking, both claiming to be a part of "God's plan." Just because they say it, does not mean it is true. Same for anyone else.
I’m totally with you on this one. Just because someone says something does not mean it is true. Nor does it mean that it is not true.
Slavery is defended in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. It took thousand of years to make much progress against slavery. We still have it today, just mostly in different guises. So it was considered a right to own a slave. That right has changed. We continue to fight for an end of all slavery.
I would hold that it wasn’t a right. Merely that it was legal at the time.
When I say there are no rights, I tried to explain that we create our rights, we decide what rights we are to have, and then we disagree about them and the details about them. We now have the right to vote for all adults above the age of 18. At one time women couldn't vote, people of color couldn't vote, young people under age 21 couldn't vote. Rights change. They can progress forward or they can be set back.
Again, this might just be a matter of semantics. I hold that there are absolute rights that exist whether there are laws, i.e. legal rights, that support those rights or not. And we argue about both: we argue and discuss “rights” to discover what they are; we argue and discuss laws (legal rights) to decide what they are going to be…for the time being. We have a law that holds that citizens about the age of 18 can vote. (Personally, this very much of a “law” … the age of 18 seems somewhat arbitrary. It could just as easily have been 17 or 21 or some other societal agreed upon age.) We have a law the holds that women, people of color have the vote. (Personally, this seems to me to fall into the rights category. I’m not a theologian or a lawyer. Maybe this is just a law. But my gut feeling is that it is a right.)
Again, maybe it’s just semantics. I don’t believe rights change. Laws change. Laws, I can see, can move to a closer approximation of what our rights are, or they can move further (mmm farther?) away from what our rights are.
Oh, God, I’m gone on so long. But your post was not set up for a quick response. Heck (I toned down my language), your post requires books and books and books.
Oh, good, God is now back in my post. And really, I think I have to return here because it seems that God/Creator vs. No God/No Creator is a subtext of your post.
So let me address that just quick like. I do believe in a Creator. And for me personally, that would be God. But a Creator in any case. And I have to believe that on the basis of rational reasons. In this day and age, those Kierkegaarian leaps of faith are harder to come by. THIS I have put some thought into.
Yes, by and large, it seems to me, that Creationists base their beliefs on faith: i.e., that God created the heavens and the earth. And we don’t have to explain God: He’s God. And God is, almost by definition, unexplainable, and beyond the understanding of man.
But, it seems to me that evolutionists ALSO base their beliefs on faith. Faith in science. And science has led back pretty darn conclusively to the Big Bang. Well and good. But science can’t say where that first tiny, tiny, tiny speck that banged up came from. And science says you can’t create something out of nothing. And science, by definition, HAS to obey the laws of science. So, to me, it seems that science has a pretty logical explanation for millions/billions of years of existence. BUT, a scientific theory should be premised on a sound fact. Science seemingly can go back to the almost-almost beginning, to that tiny speck (Step 2). And then, because it can’t scientifically explain how/where that speck came from (Step 1){a speck that CANNOT exist, scientifically, out of nothing}, it has to, in effect say, OK, let’s just start with Step 2. We scientists have faith that that speck was there. And we can’t or don’t want to explain how it got there. But Science should be, almost by definition, explainable. We are after all discussing Logic.
OK, Jimmy, I may not be “right” …lol…er, correct, but I paid you the respect of trying to address your points. Hope you have a good day.
Oh, Jimmy, thank you for an enjoyable afternoon.
Patrice, thanks for the quotes that tied into the subject so well.
Everyman, thanks for your posts. You made your points with so many fewer words. I keep aiming there and missing.
Jimmy, again, thanks for engaging me.
Everyman, thanks for your posts. You made your points with so many fewer words. I keep aiming there and missing.
Jimmy, again, thanks for engaging me.
Patrice wrote: "Plenty of evidence for that!Jefferson:
"I have sworn upon THE ALTAR OF THE GOD ETERNAL hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" Sept 23, 1800
"ALMIGHTY GOD hath created t..."
There is plenty of evidence that the founders believed that rights came from God. (Well, with a caveat: they may have been saying that to make their views politically correct and generally acceptable; if, after all, they had said that the rights came from Satan, people would be unlikely to embrace them.) But I'll assume for the sake of the argument that they were sincere about their views.
But that does NOT mean that the rights ACTUALLY came from God. That's a very different question.
I know of no way to prove logically that rights come from God, in part because I know of no way to prove logically that God exists. Even Aquinas, hard as he tried to prove logically the existence of God didn't, in my estimation, make it. How should I expect to?
Edit: I do, personally, believe that God not only exists but created human life. But that's a matter of belief, not something I can prove through the principles of logic.
Touche, Patrice. You seem to be able to articulate what us newbies wish to some day be bold enough to say, thank you.
Everyman wrote: "Jimmy wrote: "I hope I'm not, but so be it."Don't fret, Jimmy. That's Robin's basic response when she's faced with an argument she can't answer but doesn't want to admit it. She's used it befo..."
Everyman on some level you are correct, but I suppose I shouldn't make comments if I don't "add" to the conversation, it just seemed to me that Jimmy was trying to upset me and being confrontational, and I chose to not get involved so that is my explanation for that. Sorry, Jimmy did not mean to offend you. I don't want to talk as if I know it all, so at times I can be curt and I do know my inner workings that much. But Everyman, you have used the same tactic as far as what I tried to engage or not with you. I don't think you should be making blanket statements like I have done it before, so the theoretical logical thread is of course, I must be doing it again, or will in the future. Boof
Patrice wrote: "And I am full of doubt about God. But whether or not he exists seems irrelevant to me. The constitution was a contract, signed by a group of men who decided that these rights came from God (or at least said so"That's perfectly correct.
They did believe, or at least say, that's where the rights came from.
But saying something, and something being true, are two different things, aren't they? If they had listed the exact same rights, but said that they came from their concerted study of the Epic of Gilgamesh, would that have changed the rights as enumerated in the founding documents? Or would the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness still be the same rights, only arising from a different stated source?
Adelle,You have a very commendable way of arguing. No one is ever going to call YOU arrogant. I wish more Americans followed your lead. We could all use a lot more moderation.
There's an interesting article in Newsweek, October 25, 2010, by Andrew Romano called "America's Holy Writ" about this topic we have been discussing. I highly recommend it. Romano ends with some quotes by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a friend in 1816:
1. Jefferson mocked "men (who) look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched."
2. Jefferson also mocked men "who ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment."
3. Jefferson concluded, "Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs."
4. Jefferson said, "Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before."
Amen to Thomas Jefferson. He was not a man to get trapped in the past. He knew that ideas changed.
By the way, John F Kennedy has told the best joke about Jefferson. Kennedy was speaking to a White House full of Nobel Prize winners when he said,"I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent and of human knowledge that has ever been gathered together at the White House – with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
Adelle, Here are some quotes from our Constitution about slavery:
Provisions in the Original Constitution:
Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].
Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. [No power to ban slavery until 1808]
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]
...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.
The Thirteenth Amendment
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The right to own slaves existed in our nation and, as far as I know, all other nations, including those in the Bible, for thousand of years. It wasn't until the 13th amendment of 1865 that the constitution made it illegal here in America.
Jimmy wrote: "Adelle,
You have a very commendable way of arguing. No one is ever going to call YOU arrogant. I wish more Americans followed your lead. We could all use a lot more moderation.
There's an intere..."
Whew! So glad you wrote that. I was concerned that I might have come across as rather abasive. I had been thinking, "If only I could write with a hand extended toward the other party like Everyman so often does."
I'll check out the article.
You have a very commendable way of arguing. No one is ever going to call YOU arrogant. I wish more Americans followed your lead. We could all use a lot more moderation.
There's an intere..."
Whew! So glad you wrote that. I was concerned that I might have come across as rather abasive. I had been thinking, "If only I could write with a hand extended toward the other party like Everyman so often does."
I'll check out the article.
Patrice wrote: "I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that a Marxist state could list the same "rights" and give the Communist Manifesto as the source but there would be a different interpretation? I do vagu..."Certainly a Marxist state could list the same right sand give the Manifesto as a source. Why not?
Whether they would be interpreted the same way would be up to those people with the authority to decide what the rights were. In the US, that starts with our elected representatives and ends up ultimately with the Supreme Court. They are the ones who decide, for example, that the right to life doesn't exclude capital punishment and doesn't protect the life of the unborn child. They're the ones who decide that you can't pursue liberty by refusing to pay taxes or by taking what yo want from a store without paying for it.
I find it interesting that everyone talks about their rights but do not think they have any direct responsibility to ensure that they are kept. "Freedom" is like "happiness", very difficult to define. I still believe the political environment, to a great extent, reflects the attitiudes of the public of the day.
In this thread we seem to be picking on the rights of the less fortunate people in society. We become more annoyed or afraid of street people. They are an easy target.
White collar crime doesn't seem to raise the same feelings. The number of people who have a great deal of their money in tax havens such as Bermuda, Channels Islands and Grand Caymans doesn't seem to be a concern. Large organizations also use evey means possible to reduce their taxable income to the nation. Of course, no one cheats on their income taxes.
We can talk about freedom and rights as long as we want but we should be discussing power, greed and other relevant issues as well.
Surrey is the fastest growing city in B.C.. They have one of the poorest areas and one of the richest areas in the province. In law enforcement, there is as much concern for the street people in one area as for the young people living in homes with 3 car garages that think they are above or at least can circumvent the law.
Most western governments reduced the number of psychiatric hospitals without building a new infrastructure. Anti-psychotic drugs are not that effective because we do not know what the exact physiological problems are in relation to mental illness. In fact a couple of major pharmaceutical manufacturers are reducing research in this area of medicine. In most severe cases of mental illness psycho therapy is not a valid option.
The last financial crash in 2008 impacted more on the middle class this time because they had investments. The poorer working class and others were also hit hard, but many of them did not have any investments.
This crash made a lot more people feel vulnerable to their economic well being. Generally, when you introduce new social services they are done in good economic times as they are often front end loaded.
The illegal use of drugs in North America adds a different dimension to resolving the issues of social housing and other social programs. No easy answers. When it comes to mental illness these issues are as important if not more so than medical treatment.
Being a senior citizen, I can tell you that most of us did not pay enough in to the system compared to the benefits we are getting out of it. At least in Canada. My parents paid less and got more than us as the length of contribution and the amount of contribution has increased over the years. My kids(40) will have paid more than me and will probably have fewer services.
Getting back to freedom. I believe in representative government. Direct democracy (eg referendum) doesn't work well except on profound changes in the governement process or other exceptional measures.
There is a duality in the nature of things. I agree with Samuel Butler in "The Way of All Flesh". You cannot define virtue without vice. There is a little vice in every virtue and a little virtue in every vice. Getting back to freedom. You can't give people the freedom to act without impacting on someone elses right to not be interfered with.
Without significant limitations, health care could eat the total provincial budget. The public generally does not want to hear the truth about the fact we are living so much longer and costing the health care system so much more money.
There are so many problems but I trust a confused government more than individual greed. At least with government we can throw them out after awhile. An individual can take everything you have and leave the country.
In this thread we seem to be picking on the rights of the less fortunate people in society. We become more annoyed or afraid of street people. They are an easy target.
White collar crime doesn't seem to raise the same feelings. The number of people who have a great deal of their money in tax havens such as Bermuda, Channels Islands and Grand Caymans doesn't seem to be a concern. Large organizations also use evey means possible to reduce their taxable income to the nation. Of course, no one cheats on their income taxes.
We can talk about freedom and rights as long as we want but we should be discussing power, greed and other relevant issues as well.
Surrey is the fastest growing city in B.C.. They have one of the poorest areas and one of the richest areas in the province. In law enforcement, there is as much concern for the street people in one area as for the young people living in homes with 3 car garages that think they are above or at least can circumvent the law.
Most western governments reduced the number of psychiatric hospitals without building a new infrastructure. Anti-psychotic drugs are not that effective because we do not know what the exact physiological problems are in relation to mental illness. In fact a couple of major pharmaceutical manufacturers are reducing research in this area of medicine. In most severe cases of mental illness psycho therapy is not a valid option.
The last financial crash in 2008 impacted more on the middle class this time because they had investments. The poorer working class and others were also hit hard, but many of them did not have any investments.
This crash made a lot more people feel vulnerable to their economic well being. Generally, when you introduce new social services they are done in good economic times as they are often front end loaded.
The illegal use of drugs in North America adds a different dimension to resolving the issues of social housing and other social programs. No easy answers. When it comes to mental illness these issues are as important if not more so than medical treatment.
Being a senior citizen, I can tell you that most of us did not pay enough in to the system compared to the benefits we are getting out of it. At least in Canada. My parents paid less and got more than us as the length of contribution and the amount of contribution has increased over the years. My kids(40) will have paid more than me and will probably have fewer services.
Getting back to freedom. I believe in representative government. Direct democracy (eg referendum) doesn't work well except on profound changes in the governement process or other exceptional measures.
There is a duality in the nature of things. I agree with Samuel Butler in "The Way of All Flesh". You cannot define virtue without vice. There is a little vice in every virtue and a little virtue in every vice. Getting back to freedom. You can't give people the freedom to act without impacting on someone elses right to not be interfered with.
Without significant limitations, health care could eat the total provincial budget. The public generally does not want to hear the truth about the fact we are living so much longer and costing the health care system so much more money.
There are so many problems but I trust a confused government more than individual greed. At least with government we can throw them out after awhile. An individual can take everything you have and leave the country.
I would like to follow up the discussion of personal freedom with a bit of a shift to coal mining. Rand Paul is a libertarian who was elected as the Republican Senator of Kentucky this Tuesday. He wants fewer regulations on coal mining. His idea of freedom is to get government out of regulating businesses like coal mining. Ironically, the country which uses the fewest regulations is communist China where thousands of coal miners die every year. Chinese miners are fighting to try to get more government regulations to protect them. Rand Paul was asked to answer the question of how old the earth is, and he passed on the question so he would not offend his Christian supporters who consider it to be about 6,000 years old. I watched a documentary on mountain top removal coal mining, and one of the miners believed God put the coal there 6,000 years ago for us to dig up. You can't make things like that up. They are just beyond ignorant. So Rand Paul follows this lead and wants to speed up the process of coal mining to get people back to work at whatever cost to the environment or to the workers. And like Mitch McConnell, the other coal-mining-company-owned senator from Kentucky, he pushes for less regulation. This is where his ideas about freedom lead.
Mountain top coal mining is something to behold. The land is deforested, and the trees are often burned for nothing. Life is destroyed. Topsoil is often wasted. Toxic sludge pits are often left behind after the coal is gone. Poor people are left behind to live there. Is this freedom?
Couldn't freedom also be the right of miners to organize and form unions? To demand safety and environmental regulations? To get the coal mining industry out of the government regulatory bodies?
Your're hitting on many issues here.
The protection of the environment versus eonomics and employment.
The right of people to organize themselves versus the rights of the individuals within that organization.
The mining industry moving to third world countries with less environmental protection and the significant drop of mining in many North American jurisdictions.
In our jurisdiction miners for the most part are unionized. They are generally considered high paying jobs. On the other hand very few or any mines have been opened in the last few years. The balance between economics and environment is hard to find when different countries have different priorities.
The history of mining is pretty dismal but it has improved significantly in many countries, unfortunately not fast enough. Recently, I read "Germinal" by E. Zola. which paints a very tough picture of mining in France in the 19th century.
My great grandfather worked in the mines in England when he was 12 . You often could not stand up when working.
You are not just talking about freedom here but also power. A person's faith really doesn't matter and I don't equate it with the morality or ethics of the individual. I find people can be a paradox. Their beliefs don't always match their actions.
Personally I do NOT believe any primary resource industry can be self regulating. The government bureaucracy, in my opinion, is a much more important part of the power stucture than unions, particularly in USA. The politicians, big business, and the bureaucrats are the big three. The strength of each in relation to each other is always changing depending on the economic evnironment, the strength of the political party in power, and the quality of the leaders in the bureaucracy. Unforutnately you and I can't be sure of whats going on because the news media filters or promotes their own views on the relationship between these three powerful groups.
Unions have their place, but their power is greatly influenced by the economic climate. They are not strong in bad times. Any disparities between the power of the unions in relation to the power of the corporation can cause significant economic distortions. Unionization in our province was one of the highest in Canada, probably N.A. but our products are sold internationally. High wages encourage better technology which displaces many manual jobs. For better or worse,the number of "knowledge workers" and "service workers" will continue to climb as manufacturer and primary industry jobs decline. Continuing education is part of the answer but how do governments deal with that issue?
The protection of the environment versus eonomics and employment.
The right of people to organize themselves versus the rights of the individuals within that organization.
The mining industry moving to third world countries with less environmental protection and the significant drop of mining in many North American jurisdictions.
In our jurisdiction miners for the most part are unionized. They are generally considered high paying jobs. On the other hand very few or any mines have been opened in the last few years. The balance between economics and environment is hard to find when different countries have different priorities.
The history of mining is pretty dismal but it has improved significantly in many countries, unfortunately not fast enough. Recently, I read "Germinal" by E. Zola. which paints a very tough picture of mining in France in the 19th century.
My great grandfather worked in the mines in England when he was 12 . You often could not stand up when working.
You are not just talking about freedom here but also power. A person's faith really doesn't matter and I don't equate it with the morality or ethics of the individual. I find people can be a paradox. Their beliefs don't always match their actions.
Personally I do NOT believe any primary resource industry can be self regulating. The government bureaucracy, in my opinion, is a much more important part of the power stucture than unions, particularly in USA. The politicians, big business, and the bureaucrats are the big three. The strength of each in relation to each other is always changing depending on the economic evnironment, the strength of the political party in power, and the quality of the leaders in the bureaucracy. Unforutnately you and I can't be sure of whats going on because the news media filters or promotes their own views on the relationship between these three powerful groups.
Unions have their place, but their power is greatly influenced by the economic climate. They are not strong in bad times. Any disparities between the power of the unions in relation to the power of the corporation can cause significant economic distortions. Unionization in our province was one of the highest in Canada, probably N.A. but our products are sold internationally. High wages encourage better technology which displaces many manual jobs. For better or worse,the number of "knowledge workers" and "service workers" will continue to climb as manufacturer and primary industry jobs decline. Continuing education is part of the answer but how do governments deal with that issue?
Jimmy wrote: "Mountain top coal mining is something to behold. The land is deforested, and the trees are often burned for nothing. Life is destroyed. Topsoil is often wasted. Toxic sludge pits are often left behind after the coal is gone. Poor people are left behind to live there. Is this freedom? "The problem is that we have divorced freedom from responsibility. Freedom without responsibility is anarchy, not freedom. Any good libertarian recognizes this, and recognizes that the freedom to take coal requires the responsibility to deal with the waste and reclaim the land as part of that freedom to take the coal. It's only the bad libertarians who accept the divorce of freedom from responsibility. I don't know Paul's views, but if they are as you say, he is IMO a bad libertarian, if he is one at all.
I have never met anybody who truly believed that there should be no government. Even the most ardent anarchists expect somebody to be there protect them from someone just coming along and killing them and paying no price for it.
If we got back to the linkage of freedom and responsibility virtually all the problems you cite would disappear.
"We are as responsible as we are free". It' a theme of existentialism and related philosophies. Unforutnately power, greed, and other vices make it difficult to ensure that"linkage" exists.
Canada has always been a democratic state with a mixed economy (public and private). USA also has a mixed economy even if the ratio may be somewhat different.You still have federal,state,city, armed forces, etc. that are government employees. When you have a large private market economy, you need government regulations and government service to ensure there is some kind of relationship between responsiblity and freedom. Unfortunately the desirable level of control and services is not obvious and changes as economic times change.
Mining in North America has one of the worst reputations in private industry.
Canada has always been a democratic state with a mixed economy (public and private). USA also has a mixed economy even if the ratio may be somewhat different.You still have federal,state,city, armed forces, etc. that are government employees. When you have a large private market economy, you need government regulations and government service to ensure there is some kind of relationship between responsiblity and freedom. Unfortunately the desirable level of control and services is not obvious and changes as economic times change.
Mining in North America has one of the worst reputations in private industry.
Philosophy
Books mentioned in this topic
Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (other topics)Law and Social Norms (other topics)
"
I would suggest that it's not rejecting the experience, but disagreeing as to what the lessons to be learned from the experience should be.