NationStates Jolt Archive

I understand the objection behind this resolution but it is faulty on two points that send it clear out to "Angry Libertarianland."

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. There are charitable people to be found, who will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.


The resolution is a bad one.

-Ajayland

How is that faulty? Nothing could be more true than those two parts.

I agree with the person who thinks the resolution is a bad one..in order for people to stop being couch potatoes, they need help to help themselves. If this UN Resolution is allowed to pass, I am sure crime rates would increase, as people would turn to crime to try and produce money.

I understand the objection behind this resolution but it is faulty on two points that send it clear out to "Angry Libertarianland."

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. There are charitable people to be found, who will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we?re just not interested in public health care.


The resolution is a bad one.

-Ajayland

I told TGM already that although I endorsed the proposal, as I felt that it should be debated, I would vote against it for prescisely those two reasons.

you gus, all it says Is WORLD RECOGNIZED RIGHTS! And he's right, you have NO right to either of those things. Now, if your nation wants to give you that priveledge, that's their choice, but you cant go before the UN and whine about not getting your right to public health care.

We agree with the NO-sayers on this one. Our reasons are purely due to the possibilities of multiple interpretations of Article VI: “You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you ...(do), don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry...”.

This can be interpreted as: ”You shall not kill”, but it could also be interpreted as: ”You shall not kill, unless he killed someone first” or: ”You shall not kill, unless you are a government”. We simply cannot pass resolutions when the intent is not completely clear.

Epidemia's postion on this is that the Bill of no rights is a superior standard to judge right and wrong.

It may need a little work to meet all the needs of the UN members. But to simpy consider voting down such a fine piece of work is just plain wrong.

I think amendments should be made to portions which your countries find offensive and the watered down version of this bill should be adopted and made into a resolution.

you gus, all it says Is WORLD RECOGNIZED RIGHTS! And he's right, you have NO right to either of those things. Now, if your nation wants to give you that priveledge, that's their choice, but you cant go before the UN and whine about not getting your right to public health care.
I've been going back and forth, first I was for this resolution, before reading this I was against it, and after reading what Pavelland said, :idea: , I agree with it, its not a right that all countries must give, It's a priveledge. And I agree with it even more when I remember that I believe the U.N. shouldn't fully tell you how to run your country.

Ditto to Pavelland. Remember: if you want to give out free housing or free food or free healthcare or free Big Screen TVs, go for it. This resolution does not stop you.

All this resolution says is that you don't have the INHERANT NATURAL RIGHT to those things.

As I'm fortunate enough to live in Finland, I do have the right to free healthcare if nothing else can be arranged. Therefor I cannot vote for this to pass. Yes, maybe I'm blinded by the very unique system we have, but I also see the good it does.

I'm not saying that the proposal in whole is bad. It has some very good points, but some very faulty ones too. Or atleast to me it seems so.

I vote against.

How is that faulty? Nothing could be more true than those two parts.

Almost everything could. Perhaps you are confusing truth with what you believe is fair or right.

In some countries it is a right to have free healthcare and free food and hosuing for some people.

How is that faulty? Nothing could be more true than those two parts.

In some countries it is a right to have free healthcare and free food and hosuing for some people.

No, it's not. They may think it is, but it is not, because it violates the right of other individuals to keep what is theirs.

In other words--rights do not exist by government fiat. They exist because men are alive and can reason.

How is that faulty? Nothing could be more true than those two parts.

In some countries it is a right to have free healthcare and free food and hosuing for some people.

No, it's not. They may think it is, but it is not, because it violates the right of other individuals to keep what is theirs.

There is no such right in a country such as Wolomy, so yet again you are wrong.

In other words--rights do not exist by government fiat. They exist because men are alive and can reason.

Then if I take something that belongs to you, it is now mine. So it is "immoral" to punish something for taking something that is thiers.

And I would question how you support your conclusion that rights are given because men are alive and can reason, who ever said that was so, who grated us that power?

In other words--rights do not exist by government fiat. They exist because men are alive and can reason.

Then if I take something that belongs to you, it is now mine. So it is "immoral" to punish something for taking something that is thiers.

And I would question how you support your conclusion that rights are given because men are alive and can reason, who ever said that was so, who granted us that power?

How is that faulty? Nothing could be more true than those two parts.

In some countries it is a right to have free healthcare and free food and hosuing for some people.

No, it's not. They may think it is, but it is not, because it violates the right of other individuals to keep what is theirs.

There is no such right in a country such as Wolomy, so yet again you are wrong.

Actually, there is, but Wolomy chooses to ignore that fact. Again, rights exist independent of government fiat and recognition of their existence.

How is that faulty? Nothing could be more true than those two parts.

In some countries it is a right to have free healthcare and free food and hosuing for some people.

No, it's not. They may think it is, but it is not, because it violates the right of other individuals to keep what is theirs.

There is no such right in a country such as Wolomy, so yet again you are wrong.

Actually, there is, but Wolomy chooses to ignore that fact. Again, rights exist independent of government fiat and recognition of their existence.

Can you show me this right? CAn you show me anyone who enforces this right? Can you show me anything at all to prove the existance of this right?

No, therefore it does not exist. Rights can only be given by people who are able to enforce them.

How is that faulty? Nothing could be more true than those two parts.

In some countries it is a right to have free healthcare and free food and hosuing for some people.

No, it's not. They may think it is, but it is not, because it violates the right of other individuals to keep what is theirs.

There is no such right in a country such as Wolomy, so yet again you are wrong.

Actually, there is, but Wolomy chooses to ignore that fact. Again, rights exist independent of government fiat and recognition of their existence.

Can you show me this right? CAn you show me anyone who enforces this right? Can you show me anything at all to prove the existance of this right?

Gladly.

You see, men are alive and have the capability to reason. Because of this, they have the capability to accumulate wealth. As long as that wealth is accumulated through his own action and with the consent of the prior owner (if the individual in question did not create it himself), he has a moral right to keep it. Government may try to take it from him, and government may succeed in that--but then government is in the wrong for it has violated one of his absolute rights.

How is that faulty? Nothing could be more true than those two parts.

In some countries it is a right to have free healthcare and free food and hosuing for some people.

No, it's not. They may think it is, but it is not, because it violates the right of other individuals to keep what is theirs.

There is no such right in a country such as Wolomy, so yet again you are wrong.

Actually, there is, but Wolomy chooses to ignore that fact. Again, rights exist independent of government fiat and recognition of their existence.

Can you show me this right? CAn you show me anyone who enforces this right? Can you show me anything at all to prove the existance of this right?

Gladly.

You see, men are alive and have the capability to reason. Because of this, they have the capability to accumulate wealth. As long as that wealth is accumulated through his own action and with the consent of the prior owner (if the individual in question did not create it himself), he has a moral right to keep it. Government may try to take it from him, and government may succeed in that--but then government is in the wrong for it has violated one of his absolute rights.


"As long as that wealth is accumulated through his own action and with the consent of the prior owner (if the individual in question did not create it himself), he has a moral right to keep it."

This you have no proof of, and in many people's sets of morals, this is not true.

"Government may try to take it from him, and government may succeed in that--but then government is in the wrong for it has violated one of his absolute rights."

You have no proof of this either.

If you had proof, it would be ture, but you do not. If you have any proof, I would like to see it.

you gus, all it says Is WORLD RECOGNIZED RIGHTS! And he's right, you have NO right to either of those things. Now, if your nation wants to give you that priveledge, that's their choice, but you cant go before the UN and whine about not getting your right to public health care.


Should we, as the leaders of our own respective countries, have the righty to decide whether free housing, harming other and so forth is a right of a privilage?

How is that faulty? Nothing could be more true than those two parts.

In some countries it is a right to have free healthcare and free food and hosuing for some people.

No, it's not. They may think it is, but it is not, because it violates the right of other individuals to keep what is theirs.

There is no such right in a country such as Wolomy, so yet again you are wrong.

Actually, there is, but Wolomy chooses to ignore that fact. Again, rights exist independent of government fiat and recognition of their existence.

Can you show me this right? CAn you show me anyone who enforces this right? Can you show me anything at all to prove the existance of this right?

Gladly.

You see, men are alive and have the capability to reason. Because of this, they have the capability to accumulate wealth. As long as that wealth is accumulated through his own action and with the consent of the prior owner (if the individual in question did not create it himself), he has a moral right to keep it. Government may try to take it from him, and government may succeed in that--but then government is in the wrong for it has violated one of his absolute rights.


"As long as that wealth is accumulated through his own action and with the consent of the prior owner (if the individual in question did not create it himself), he has a moral right to keep it."

This you have no proof of,
Yes, I do--I have explained it several times.
and in many people's sets of morals, this is not true.
Then their morals are wrong. There is only one correct, valid set of morals.

"Government may try to take it from him, and government may succeed in that--but then government is in the wrong for it has violated one of his absolute rights."

You have no proof of this either.
Again, I do, and I've explained it several times.

If you had proof, it would be ture, but you do not. If you have any proof, I would like to see it.
Read through all my past posts in these forums...I'm tired of typing the same spiel over and over again for dense people who refuse to read and understand it.

"As long as that wealth is accumulated through his own action and with the consent of the prior owner (if the individual in question did not create it himself), he has a moral right to keep it."

This you have no proof of,
Yes, I do--I have explained it several times.

Show me where you explained this.

and in many people's sets of morals, this is not true.
Then their morals are wrong. There is only one correct, valid set of morals.[/quote]

Where is your proof that yours are correct, and there is no set of correct morals, because morals are fluid, and are the opinion of the person who holds them.

"Government may try to take it from him, and government may succeed in that--but then government is in the wrong for it has violated one of his absolute rights."

You have no proof of this either.
Again, I do, and I've explained it several times.

Show me where you have explained this.

If you had proof, it would be ture, but you do not. If you have any proof, I would like to see it.
Read through all my past posts in these forums...I'm tired of typing the same spiel over and over again for dense people who refuse to read and understand it.

You just do not have proof, I have been in this forum longer than you and have never heard you give any proof of this.

Probably because you were not reading those particular posts...

Probably because you were not reading those particular posts...

Or because you did not write it, show me proof and I'll believe you.

This resolution is good in the sense that A) It takes away some of the peoples dependency on the goverment which means they start thinking for themselves. B) It forces people to act for themselves and not take shortcuts in life. They have to actually work for the money they get instead of making up stupid law suits. C) Science will benefit from this because then you dont get these religious nay sayers who tell them they cant do this because its against gods will. Look believe in god if you want but i want to be able to get a cure for cancer, ebola, and other such deadly diseases.

Probably because you were not reading those particular posts...

Or because you did not write it, show me proof and I'll believe you.

It's not worth searching through all my posts just to suit a dense fascist such as yourself. Look for it if you want, but don't expect me to do your work for you.

If you want to stay wrong, fine, but don't come crying to me when reality comes crashing down on you because you refuse to accept the fact that everything is absolute.

Probably because you were not reading those particular posts...

Or because you did not write it, show me proof and I'll believe you.

It's not worth searching through all my posts just to suit a dense fascist such as yourself. Look for it if you want, but don't expect me to do your work for you.

If you want to stay wrong, fine, but don't come crying to me when reality comes crashing down on you because you refuse to accept the fact that everything is absolute.

So now Einstein is wrong too?

And yes I would like to hear you say your wrong, I don't think I'm going to have to accept the fact that everything is absolute anytime soon though.

Probably because you were not reading those particular posts...

Or because you did not write it, show me proof and I'll believe you.

It's not worth searching through all my posts just to suit a dense fascist such as yourself. Look for it if you want, but don't expect me to do your work for you.

If you want to stay wrong, fine, but don't come crying to me when reality comes crashing down on you because you refuse to accept the fact that everything is absolute.

So now Einstein is wrong too?
Wow...so you don't understand what Einsteinan relativity is about either.

All Einsteinian relativity says is that PERCEPTION is relative...not reality. If you are moving forward at ten miles an hour and someone next to you is moving forward at five miles an hour, then even though you will perceive him moving backwards (assuming you have nothing to compare your motion to), he's still moving forward.

And yes I would like to hear you say your wrong,[/quote]
Why would I state a falsehood such as that?
I don't think I'm going to have to accept the fact that everything is absolute anytime soon though.
Choose not at your peril...it's not my problem.

Probably because you were not reading those particular posts...

Or because you did not write it, show me proof and I'll believe you.

It's not worth searching through all my posts just to suit a dense fascist such as yourself. Look for it if you want, but don't expect me to do your work for you.

If you want to stay wrong, fine, but don't come crying to me when reality comes crashing down on you because you refuse to accept the fact that everything is absolute.

So now Einstein is wrong too?
Wow...so you don't understand what Einsteinan relativity is about either.

All Einsteinian relativity says is that PERCEPTION is relative...not reality. If you are moving forward at ten miles an hour and someone next to you is moving forward at five miles an hour, then even though you will perceive him moving backwards (assuming you have nothing to compare your motion to), he's still moving forward.

Or moving backward, if you are standing on the sun (that is if he is moving east but if not you get the idea).

So even in reality it is not absolute. So you are in fact wrong, and can no longer deny that fact. Heh, that sucks for you.

And yes I would like to hear you say your wrong,
Why would I state a falsehood such as that?

Because you are, I even proved you wrong above.
I don't think I'm going to have to accept the fact that everything is absolute anytime soon though.
Choose not at your peril...it's not my problem.

Then why do you bother coming to nationstates to tell people your views? I'm sure nobody would mind if you left.

If you people are all mad that you didn't have the idea for a Bill of No Rights first, go sulk but don't kill this proposal. No one has rights to anything. They have right to TRY to get something. If they are to lazy to get off their asses and do something about it, sucks for them.

Probably because you were not reading those particular posts...

Or because you did not write it, show me proof and I'll believe you.

It's not worth searching through all my posts just to suit a dense fascist such as yourself. Look for it if you want, but don't expect me to do your work for you.

If you want to stay wrong, fine, but don't come crying to me when reality comes crashing down on you because you refuse to accept the fact that everything is absolute.

So now Einstein is wrong too?
Wow...so you don't understand what Einsteinan relativity is about either.

All Einsteinian relativity says is that PERCEPTION is relative...not reality. If you are moving forward at ten miles an hour and someone next to you is moving forward at five miles an hour, then even though you will perceive him moving backwards (assuming you have nothing to compare your motion to), he's still moving forward.

Or moving backward, if you are standing on the sun (that is if he is moving east but if not you get the idea).
That fails to alter the fact that he still has an absolute motion vector...different perceptions may cause different misinterpretations of that motion, but that does not alter the motion itself.

So even in reality it is not absolute. So you are in fact wrong, and can no longer deny that fact. Heh, that sucks for you.
Joke's on you...

And yes I would like to hear you say your wrong,
Why would I state a falsehood such as that?

Because you are, I even proved you wrong above.
No, you didn't.

I don't think I'm going to have to accept the fact that everything is absolute anytime soon though.
Choose not at your peril...it's not my problem.

Then why do you bother coming to nationstates to tell people your views? I'm sure nobody would mind if you left.[/quote]
Because I don't want these people running the world with their fascist beliefs and wishes, controlling ME.

Here's what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the REAL United Nations in 1948, has to say:

"(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

That's good enough for us.

OK, so the real-world UN chooses to ignore reality as well. That doesn't make it any more right.

Rights cannot be created by words on a piece of paper. They exist essentially as entities unto themselves, and are not subject to debate or revocation or alteration or addition. They are absolute, final, and unchanging. That is a fact--that is reality. Ignore it at your own peril.

Wow...so you don't understand what Einsteinan relativity is about either.

All Einsteinian relativity says is that PERCEPTION is relative...not reality. If you are moving forward at ten miles an hour and someone next to you is moving forward at five miles an hour, then even though you will perceive him moving backwards (assuming you have nothing to compare your motion to), he's still moving forward.

Or moving backward, if you are standing on the sun (that is if he is moving east but if not you get the idea).
That fails to alter the fact that he still has an absolute motion vector...different perceptions may cause different misinterpretations of that motion, but that does not alter the motion itself.

No, your not understanding how this works. If I were walking along side him at the exact same speed, he is not moving at all. He is only moving forward to people comparing him to certain things, he is moving backward to people comparing him to other things. Niether is right, because there is no frame of reference that is truely not moving, so you cannot no which frame of reference is correct. I'm reading this right out of my science book, you are wrong, plain and simple, all you have to do is admit it.

So even in reality it is not absolute. So you are in fact wrong, and can no longer deny that fact. Heh, that sucks for you.
Joke's on you...

You're not a good comedian.

And yes I would like to hear you say your wrong,
Why would I state a falsehood such as that?
Because you are, I even proved you wrong above.
No, you didn't.

Well, thats true, Einstien did. But that still does not change the fact that you are wrong.

I don't think I'm going to have to accept the fact that everything is absolute anytime soon though.
Choose not at your peril...it's not my problem.

Then why do you bother coming to nationstates to tell people your views? I'm sure nobody would mind if you left.
Because I don't want these people running the world with their fascist beliefs and wishes, controlling ME.

Then why do you bother coming to nationstates? It would be far simpler to just not come.

Gladly.

You see, men are alive and have the capability to reason. Because of this, they have the capability to accumulate wealth. As long as that wealth is accumulated through his own action and with the consent of the prior owner (if the individual in question did not create it himself), he has a moral right to keep it. Government may try to take it from him, and government may succeed in that--but then government is in the wrong for it has violated one of his absolute rights.

No you are wrong. Taxes are a consentual way of sharing the wealth of people withing a single political entity because everyone technically agrees to them. So stop whining and pay your taxes.

I never agreed to them.

I never agreed to them.

Then don't pay them; the caveat is that you will have to find another country to live in and you also will not be able to partake of the many things the original country's society offers you.

I never agreed to them.

Then don't pay them; the caveat is that you will have to find another country to live in and you also will not be able to partake of the many things the original country's society offers you.

If you don't pay taxes, you will be fined.
If you don't pay the fine, you will be jailed.
If you try to escape from jail, you will be shot.

ALL TAXATION IS THE RESULT OF THE THREAT OF PHYSICAL FORCE (i.e. the threat of being shot).

In addition, if a person owns property HERE he logically can't move it to another country. There's no reason that he should pay taxes any more than absolute necessity dictates (4% flat rate would be the maximum) for things like police, military, essential services, etc. Everything else should be funded by user fees.

Our country had NO income tax for almost 150 years and we did fine!

What you're saying is like saying that by living in Nazi Germany, the Jews by implication consented to the Holocaust, therefore it was justified.

Taxes are an example of oppressive government.

I never agreed to them.

Then don't pay them; the caveat is that you will have to find another country to live in and you also will not be able to partake of the many things the original country's society offers you.

Why should he or I leave? What sort of nonsense is that? Why shouldn't the government respect our rights to keep our property?

If you don't pay taxes, you will be fined.
If you don't pay the fine, you will be jailed.
If you try to escape from jail, you will be shot.

ALL TAXATION IS THE RESULT OF THE THREAT OF PHYSICAL FORCE (i.e. the threat of being shot).


A simplistic and untrue mantra. You can leave any time you want.


In addition, if a person owns property HERE he logically can't move it to another country. There's no reason that he should pay taxes any more than absolute necessity dictates (4% flat rate would be the maximum) for things like police, military, essential services, etc. Everything else should be funded by user fees.


Should, huh? That's slavery. I want to pay taxes you fool. I'd rather pay taxes than user fees. And whatever, sell your property and move, big deal. Wasn't it you who said that nobody has a right to property, but everyone has a right to have a right to property?

finally your entire argument agaisnt taxes is irrelevant. Your labour in no way produces enough to warrant all the privileges you enjoy in the States. The roads, the police, security, blah blah blah is shared by everyone. I'm pretty sure you couldn't pay to make your own road. Be happy someone else paid for you.


What you're saying is like saying that by living in Nazi Germany, the Jews by implication consented to the Holocaust, therefore it was justified.

Taxes are an example of oppressive government.

No I'm not saying anything of the sort. You're being sensationalist. Taxes are in no way the same thing as Holocaust. Besides, yes, they happened to live in a place whose terms and conditions were subpar compared to other countries of the period, and they ought to have been able to leave.

Should, huh? That's slavery. I want to pay taxes you fool. I'd rather pay taxes than user fees.

And I want to rule the world and kill everybody I don't like. It's slavery that I actually have to respect the rights of others!

And whatever, sell your property and move, big deal. Wasn't it you who said that nobody has a right to property, but everyone has a right to have a right to property?

What? Anyways, you are forcing me to make a sale on property that is legitimately mine.

finally your entire argument agaisnt taxes is irrelevant. Your labour in no way produces enough to warrant all the privileges you enjoy in the States. The roads, the police, security, blah blah blah is shared by everyone. I'm pretty sure you couldn't pay to make your own road. Be happy someone else paid for you.

No but if thousand of people drive on that road, all of them combined can pay for it.

No I'm not saying anything of the sort. You're being sensationalist. Taxes are in no way the same thing as Holocaust. Besides, yes, they happened to live in a place whose terms and conditions were subpar compared to other countries of the period, and they ought to have been able to leave.

So what you're saying is teh Holocaust was justified because they had the right to leave?

And I want to rule the world and kill everybody I don't like. It's slavery that I actually have to respect the rights of others!


Yes. Isn't it?

However, seriously - you always equate taxes with murder. I say you're greedy and foolish and sensationalist. I may be wrong but that's what you come across as at the moment by repeatedly doing that.

What? Anyways, you are forcing me to make a sale on property that is legitimately mine.

Good point. I don't really know what to reply to that except that

No but if thousand of people drive on that road, all of them combined can pay for it.


Really. Do you know how much they cost, roads? What about those small city streets that don't really get thousands of drivers? I'd love to see the living conditions of your country, for all your GDP. If you really want to live in system that's more capitalist than the US go to South Africa. I'm sure you will be morally satisfied living there.


So what you're saying is teh Holocaust was justified because they had the right to leave?

No I'm not. Their own govt. did things it's not supposed to do to its own citizens AND it didn't allow them to leave. Thirdly, most of the jews were from countries outside Germany, so that makes the crime also having been perpetrated upon foreign nationals. Stop being sensationalist. Taxes are not the holocaust.

No I'm not. Their own govt. did things it's not supposed to do to its own citizens AND it didn't allow them to leave. Thirdly, most of the jews were from countries outside Germany, so that makes the crime also having been perpetrated upon foreign nationals. Stop being sensationalist. Taxes are not the holocaust.

Actually the Jews WERE allowed to leave from 1933 until 1939-40. Until WWII started, the Nazis actually gave them boats. After no country would take them, that's when the concentration camps were set up.

Actually the Jews WERE allowed to leave from 1933 until 1939-40. Until WWII started, the Nazis actually gave them boats. After no country would take them, that's when the concentration camps were set up.

Ah yes forgot about that. Kinda scary actually eh? Saying no to people asking for refuge. Like that ship, the St.Louis? Am I right?

Actually a few countries did allow jews in, like Netherlands, except that they were overrun later. The brits also let some in, but Canada and the US and the rest of the countries here did really awful in terms of humanity.