Originally posted by Tricky
Your implication above was that asking people to pay for something they didn't want is a socialist trait. I am showing that such exhibiting such a trait does not imply socialism.
Originally posted by WMT1
But that wasn't necessary. I never claimed that exhibiting such a trait always implies socialism, I only said that socialism is something that tends to exhibit that trait. Do you agree or not?
Originally posted by Tricky
I do not agree. You said that socialism tends to exhibit such traits.
Yes, and I just acknowledged as much in the statement you quoted in your own damn post! What I did
not say, at
any point, was that
everything that exhibits such traits is socialist. And this has already been pointed out, more than once.
You did not say "socialism and other things" exhibit such traits.
I also did not say that socialism was the
only thing that exhibits such traits.
(Dude, do you really talk like that? If you were describing your new red car to someone, would you say "my new car
and other things are red"?)
You have singled out socialism.
Okay, pay close attention.
Tmy asked "Whats so wrong with having socialist traits in certain areas?"
And I responded "Those traits tend to involve forcing people to pay for things they may not wish to pay for, and did not agree to pay for."
Now, is it your position that my response was the same as claiming that
everything that involves "forcing people to pay for things they may not wish to pay for, and did not agree to pay for" is, by definition, a
socialist trait? If so, your logic is a little like responding to someone who claims that a dog is an animal as if they had claimed all animals were dogs.
I can only comment on the things you have said, not on the things you have not said.
Apparently not. You seem to have a knack for doing the latter, because that's
all your point here amounts to.
No, I am not implying GWB is socialist, but rather that your characterization of socialist "traits" does not distinguish socialists from non-socialists.
I didn't say it does. You're responding to arguments I haven't made.
I respectfully disagree. I think most readers would take your comments to be an attempt to characterize socialism.
Nice attempt to create the impression of having a point, but nothing I've said is inconsistent with it being an attempt to characterize socialism. Unfortunately, keeping your rather absurd point on life support depends on something more specific than that - the idea that I said that everything that shares the trait in question qualifies as socialist.
If your intention was otherewise, it was certainly not clear.
It was
not otherwise, so your point is irrelevant. You're pissing in the wind here. No wonder you have so much difficulty recognizing who's winning a debate.
So you think that we have rights, but right to education is not one of them. Who then defines what are "rights"? The government? God? You?
From what I've seen, my assessment of such things is as sound as anyone else's. If you've got some ideas that you think are better, feel free to put'em on the table for discussion. But if all you can come up with is that they are defined by government, it's going to reflect about as much critical analysis as someone saying "because the Bible says so".
From what I've seen, your assesment of such things is not too good.
I'm not surprised. As one who lets government do your thinking for you, I can understand why you'd find independent thinking a little confusing.
In any case, if my assessment of such things is "not too good", then how about identifying the 2 or 3 best examples of "rights" that I'm
wrong about, and we can take a closer look?
We can both put our ideas on the table, but who decides when we disagree? My answer is "the government" (judges, etc.). Can you give me a direct answer to this question?
Just depends on what you're asking.
Anyone can "decide" something. So, if all you're asking is who gets to impose their decisions on others, then I'd agree with your answer. But that's just about who has the
power, and has no actual bearing on whether their decisions are the
right ones.
I was thinking I had already asked you this, but I can't find it anywhere, so maybe it was someone else.
Are you capable of formulating any opinion about anything anyone is entitled to, or deserving of, without regard to what government has to say about it? If so, please provide an example.
And incidentally, why the superfluous question about a "direct answer"? You don't really want to suggest that you've got anything on me in terms of answering questions directly, do you?
My argument is that rights are defined by the law.
Well, legal rights certainly are. Do you simply reject the idea of rights in any broader sense?
In this context, yes.
My question didn't limit the context. Please try answering the question I asked. And in the future, you should probably think twice before posting any implications about anyone
else's ability to answer a question directly.
What you are calling "rights" I call morality.
So, where I'd say someone has a
right to do something, you'd say they have a "morality" to do something?
If you are arguing that there are certain moral concepts on which most of us agree, I would say that is true.
I'm pretty sure I haven't addressed this one way or the other.
However, they are not "rights" until they are codified.
What are you basing this conclusion on?
If it against the law to rape, then the rapist had no "right" to do so.
Putting that qualifier on it like that is a bit scary. I would argue the rapist had no right to do so, period. Still, I wasn't asking about the rights of the rapist. I was asking about the rights of the victim. Can I take it that, to you, she only has a right not to be raped if the law says so?
Yes, I thought I would simplify it instead of taking the convoluted path you did.
Um ... which is more convoluted, answering a question directly, or answering something other than what was asked?
It should be obvious that If the law says rape is illegal, then she had the "right" not to be raped.
That's funny, I was kinda thinkin' it should be obvious that she had a right not to be raped,
regardless of what the law says.
If there is no law forbidding rape, then she has no such rights.
Thanks for continuing to demonstrate which of us has a greater respect for individuals' dominion over their own bodies.
Some of us vote for people to defend rights, not "decide" them.
You can't defend them until you have decided what they are. Otherwise, how would you know what to defend?
Not a problem. I
do know what they are, so knowing what needs defending isn't a problem for me. The problem is that others are confused about such issues, and will apparently swallow up whatever their government tells them.
And by the way, if what you're talking about is "rights" matching individual moral codes, then doesn't that mean those moral codes must have something to say about "rights" in the first place?
Now you're getting it!
Okay, now you're slipping into that good old pattern of unwarranted sarcasm/condescension to cover for the weakness of your position.
Yes, of course moral codes have everything to do with rights. But within the US, there are many moral codes, but everybody (or at least most people) have the same rights. How do you decide which bits of various moral codes go into deciding what is a "right"?
Again, not a problem. Those bits of various moral codes that have to do with respecting other people's dominion over their own lives and property, as long as they're not violating anyone
else (or
their property), is a pretty solid test. The rest of it should be left out of lawmaking. But since you said "From what I've seen, your assessment of such things is not too good", I'm sure you've got a better answer. I can't wait to hear it.
Do I need to repeat it to you?
I'll count this as the #2 entry in the "unwarranted sarcasm/condescension" department.
Without law, there are no rights.
Sounds to me like a case of the tail wagging the dog. Some of us are able to conceive of rights independently of what anyone
tells us they are, and to formulate opinions about what laws should be,
based on those rights, not the other way around. Incidentally, if there are no rights
without law, then why bother with law at all?
ROTFL. This is one for somebody's sig line!
And yet amazingly, coming up with a "direct answer" proved to be too much of a challenge for you. I'll count this as #3.
And what you should probably find at least a little embarrassing is that the premise of the question you're commenting on is based on
your statement "Without law, there are no rights".
But you were expressing your "opinion" about what the US government is based on. Do you have anything to support the "opinion" that the US government is based on the notion that people should have those "rights", rather than being based on a recognition that they do have them?
I'd say our whole legal system supports my opinion.
What a surprise that the legal system would support the opinion of someone so prone to drawing his opinions
from the legal system.
Here's an example that is currently in the news. Two men are caught engaging in consensual sex. Texas law says they are criminals and have no right to do this thing.
And those of us capable of thinking independently of what government tells us can reach the conclusion that the Texas law is, you know,
wrong.
They go through the legal system and (hopefully) wind up having the right to consensual sex.
Why "hopefully"? If you don't think they have the right to begin with, why should you care whether the law gets overturned?
Voila! A brand new right, courtesy of the government.
Nope. Long overdue
recognition of a right. Try and keep up.
Now you tell me. Is there a "right" to practice homosexuality?
Of course, as long as it's all consensual. Individual sovereignty and all that.
At what age does this "right" begin (i.e., what is the age of consent)?
Probably about the time someone has the actual
desire to engage in such activity.
I'm okay with each individual deciding that particular issue for himself.
I'm not sure where you're going with this, but if it has something to do with making the point that there are areas of uncertainty, such as the boundaries of parental authority, or the age at which full rights should be recognized, let me save you some time. Consider
that point agreed to. That does not warrant turning one's ability to think over to government officials, especially on points that are more clear, such as the right of peaceful
adults to run their own lives.
And while you may not look to the US government for your opinions, you assuredly do look to them for your "rights" (assuming you are a citizen of the US).
I may look to them to protect my rights, but not to define them. And sadly, they often end up violating them. That raises an interesting question though. Is it your position that there can be no such thing as a law that violates rights?
I ask again (expecting no answer), Who defines them? What if people disagree? As the case above shows, since laws conflict from place to place, so do rights. Certainly there are laws that violate my moral code.
Damn, there is
soooo much wrong with this response. Let's break it down a bit.
"I ask again (expecting no answer)"
There is no basis for such a remark, of course, since you weren't asking a question that had previously been ignored, and since my record of responding directly to comments and questions about the things I've posted is as solid as anyone's, including
yours.
In fact, it is particularly ironic since, in this very same response, you yourself failed to provide a simple, straightforward answer, to the yes/no question that
I asked. But thanks for revealing once and for all the level of honesty we're dealing with, and demonstrating that you're more concerned with fostering a certain
impression than winning a point honestly.
"Who defines them?"
In the absence of anyone ever having come up with anything better, I'm okay with my definitions, thanks. It's pretty close to that whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing - basically, individuals own themselves, and have the right to run their own lives, including decision-making control over their own honestly acquired property/earnings, all as long as they don't violate the equal rights of others in these areas.
"What if people disagree?"
If they disagree significantly with what I just described, then I'd say they don't have a great deal of respect for other people, and probably don't have any business having much of a say in how things are for everyone else anyway.
If you're talking about disagreements over the finer points of determining
whether the rights I've described have been violated, I'd say putting together the right kind of government could be a useful tool for resolving
those issues -
not the same thing as looking to government as the
source of rights.
"As the case above shows, since laws conflict from place to place, so do rights."
The "case above" didn't show that. It only showed that
laws conflict from place to place, and that some of those laws can
violate rights.
"Certainly there are laws that violate my moral code."
That's nice, but it's not what I asked. Once again,
is it your position that there can be no such thing as a law that violates rights? (Yes or no will suffice).
People are forced to do things (including paying for things) all the time that are deemed (by our laws) to be good for the country.
Thanks for providing that insightful observation about how things
are. I never cease to be amazed at the people (particularly in
this forum) who seem to think this has any weight as an argument about how things
should be.
And I am constantly amazed that some people are not able to fathom such arguments.
You're giving yourself way too much credit. It's not an argument. It's an observation of the status quo. If it counted as an argument, how could anyone ever argue for change? Someone else could always simply say "but this is the way things are, so you're wrong".
I have thought I made it clear that I think our representative system of government is how it should be.
You did. So what? Merely pointing that out does not suddenly turn every comment about the status quo into an
argument. And specifically, simply pointing out that ...
"People are forced to do things (including paying for things) all the time that are deemed (by our laws) to be good for the country"
... has absolutely
no weight as an argument that anyone
should be forced to pay for anything, which is how you seemed to be using it. It would be refreshing if you could actually manage to come up with an argument to support your position that does
not fall into the category of "this is the way things are". Constantly relying on this is a sign of just how poorly thought out your position actually is.
It ain't perfect, but it works pretty well, certainly much better than having every individual decide on their own "rights".
Actually, it does not work nearly as well as it should, and the fact that you
think it works "pretty well" is an indication of just how low you've set the bar.
And whether it works better than "having every individual decide on their own 'rights'" is irrelevant, since that's not something I've argued for.
Was that clear enough for you?
And here we have #4. This one is
particularly unwarranted, since you seem to be trying to pass off non-arguments as arguments, and then using this question to try to make it appear as if the fault somehow lies with the person pointing that out to you.
(Cont.)
). You are free to try to change how the government spends money.
