NationStates Jolt Archive

I just watched this on Newgrounds and I though that it was quite thought provoking. It discusses theories on liberty and wrongful action.

The graphics aren't facncy (because it isn't the point) and it's kinda long and takes a little patience to get the full meaning, but I think some of you will agree that it makes good points and has a good message.

Clicky (http://www.free-market.net/resources/introduction.html)

*switched host sites, due to prevalence of h3nt4i at Newgrounds*

Check out the rest of the site when it's finished.

that was long. what does it mean and why did I watch it? You stole some of my time. which the video thinks is bad
give me back my 5 minutes!

that was long. what does it mean and why did I watch it? You stole some of my time. which the video thinks is bad
give me back my 5 minutes!

...All requests are to be submitted in triplicate.

that was long. what does it mean and why did I watch it? You stole some of my time. which the video thinks is bad
give me back my 5 minutes!
He didn't steal it, because you had to click the link to initiate. Thus, you agreed to waste your time, and it is your fault, or weren't you paying any attention?
I liked the video, and found the animations humorous. I only wish I had a giant flying hand that I could shoot out of the symbol painted on my chest.

that was long. what does it mean and why did I watch it? You stole some of my time. which the video thinks is bad
give me back my 5 minutes!
lmao...it was an interesting video, but only is true in theory. Humans are greedy and evil naturally, but only show it when given the oppotunity. There are, however, people who are not.

lmao...it was an interesting video, but only is true in theory. Humans are greedy and evil naturally, but only show it when given the oppotunity. There are, however, people who are not.

I disagree. I think people are greedy and evil because of laziness. It's people who don't take the time to be responsible, or place their responsibilities on the shoulders of the officials that consider humans to be naturally evil. And that train of thought promotes hate. Where as, like the animation said, we take our responsibilities seriously, and depend on people who offer the same, I think we can achieve something more than what we are

I've watched it before and pretty much agree with all its points.

That video had about as much philosophical worth as Star Wars Episode 2 had well-written dialogue.

Although I agree with its message, that video has always bored me to tears. I've never been able to view the whole 5 minutes.

Liberalism for beginners.

I got interrupted half way through and there is no way I am watching the first half again. That music loop was the worst, I think I was almost hypnotized.

But then again, I disagree with any notion of inalienable rights, simply because they stem from a humanocentrist viewpoint.

To accept that an individual owns their life and that life can only be taken by consent, but then to kill other living things that cannot consent, even to sustain your own life, is a contradiction.

It places humans as somehow inherently superior to other life forms, a superiority which dissolves when you accept evolution (unless, I guess, you somehow feel that whatever makes a human "human" had no existance in the first true human's parents). When you accept that humanity is merely another step on a continuum of life, it becomes obvious that to believe that life can only be taken by consent dooms us to carrion feeding, cannibalism, or starvation.

But then again, I disagree with any notion of inalienable rights, simply because they stem from a humanocentrist viewpoint.

To accept that an individual owns their life, that life can only be taken by consent, and then to continue to kill other living things that cannot consent to sustain your own life is a contradiction.

It places humans as somehow inherently superior to other life forms, a superiority which dissolves when you accept evolution (unless, I guess, you somehow feel that whatever makes a human "human" had no existance in the first true human's parents). When you accept that humanity is merely another step on a continuum of life, it becomes obvious that to believe that life can only be taken by consent dooms us to carrion feeding, cannibalism, or starvation.
Humans are superior. Deep ecology is passe and justifies mass genocide in the name of "diebacks." If I weren't leaving my house, I'd write a lot of stuff here. But that's the brief summary.

Agreed. Humans are the superior life form on earth.

Consent does not apply to lower life.

But then again, I disagree with any notion of inalienable rights, simply because they stem from a humanocentrist viewpoint.

To accept that an individual owns their life and that life can only be taken by consent, but then to kill other living things that cannot consent, even to sustain your own life, is a contradiction.

It places humans as somehow inherently superior to other life forms, a superiority which dissolves when you accept evolution (unless, I guess, you somehow feel that whatever makes a human "human" had no existance in the first true human's parents). When you accept that humanity is merely another step on a continuum of life, it becomes obvious that to believe that life can only be taken by consent dooms us to carrion feeding, cannibalism, or starvation.

Rights are a human construct to help define how humans interact with other humans. Their existence assumes reasonable ability to comprehend them. This means that rights do not extend outside of human interaction and reason.

Besides human existence is at a higher level than other animal existence, even if it mattered.

I posted this flash...

God knows how long ago!

Must've been around late December.

2004.

Rights are a human construct to help define how humans interact with other humans. Their existence assumes reasonable ability to comprehend them. This means that rights do not extend outside of human interaction and reason.

Which means that people with significant brain injury, such as Terry Schiavo, have no rights? Are we then perfectly justified in using such people as cattle?

Which means that people with significant brain injury, such as Terry Schiavo, have no rights? Are we then perfectly justified in using such people as cattle?

There are quite a few factors involved, but a completely brain dead human with no chance of recovery has no rights.

Agreed. Humans are the superior life form on earth.

Consent does not apply to lower life.

Correction. It is humanity's nature to believe itself superior. Say that when aliens are kicking our asses.

Correction. It is humanity's nature to believe itself superior. Say that when aliens are kicking our asses.

That's why I said "on EARTH"!

There are quite a few factors involved, but a completely brain dead human with no chance of recovery has no rights.
Completely brain dead? Before you were simply saying "reasonable ability to comprehend", now you've extended it. Which one is it?

Completely brain dead? Before you were simply saying "reasonable ability to comprehend", now you've extended it. Which one is it?

Rights come with the reasonable ability to comprehend them, a brain dead person would have no reasonable ability to comprehend any rights, therefore they have no rights.

That's why I said "on EARTH"!

Very nice add-on.

Rights come with the reasonable ability to comprehend them, a brain dead person would have no reasonable ability to comprehend any rights, therefore they have no rights.Ah, so you agree then that apes have rights, as the ability to reasonably comprehend language has been shown by such?

Very nice add-on.

Well, the Zyroninans from Hyjyx VI would pwn us.

Ah, so you agree then that apes have rights, as the ability to reasonably comprehend language has been shown by such?

Me earlier:

Rights are a human construct to help define how humans interact with other humans.

Me earlier:

Rights are a human construct to help define how humans interact with other humans.I actually agree with this statement, but I'm trying to point out how it makes the concept of fundamental rights (such as "you have a right to your life") inherently worthless.

First, though, let's deal with the rest of your quote:
Their existence assumes reasonable ability to comprehend them. This means that rights do not extend outside of human interaction and reason.

Obviously at this point it seems that you don't consider "reasonable ability to comprehend them" as important as simply "being human". Which, as I pointed out before, is a viewpoint entirely centred on the idea that humans are somehow different in kind from other animals. You're entitled to hold this belief, but I suggest that you do so as an article of faith, without significant evidence in your favor, and against logic and evolutionary theory that suggests otherwise.

Now, getting to the meat:
If rights are a human construct, then they are subject to change as humanity does.
If rights are subject to change then they are essentially worthless for judging the morality of an action, as the rights humanity decides we have in future may not be the same as those we have now.
As such, to base a philosophy on any idea of "rights" seems to be a foolhardy course of action.

That's how I see it anyway.

But then again, I disagree with any notion of inalienable rights, simply because they stem from a humanocentrist viewpoint.

To accept that an individual owns their life and that life can only be taken by consent, but then to kill other living things that cannot consent, even to sustain your own life, is a contradiction.

It places humans as somehow inherently superior to other life forms, a superiority which dissolves when you accept evolution (unless, I guess, you somehow feel that whatever makes a human "human" had no existance in the first true human's parents). When you accept that humanity is merely another step on a continuum of life, it becomes obvious that to believe that life can only be taken by consent dooms us to carrion feeding, cannibalism, or starvation.
I'll buy this argument when apes, dolphins, ants, or some other animal race develops architecture, makes art, creates stories for entertainment, or in some way produces evidence that they have anything even resembling human worth.
Humanity is the top shit, and we earned that right through millenia of getting stepped on by the rest of the world. We rose to the surface and spread, we dominated the globe and have sought to improve our life through technology. No other race has done that, and until one does, Humans are the superior species.

Obviously at this point it seems that you don't consider "reasonable ability to comprehend them" as important as simply "being human".

Not completely, it is just that the reasonable ability to comprehend rights is contingent on being human, as humans are the only creatures able to comprehend them.

Which, as I pointed out before, is a viewpoint entirely centred on the idea that humans are somehow different in kind from other animals.

They are similar in their evolutionary design, but extremely different in the extent of their evolutionary make up.

You're entitled to hold this belief, but I suggest that you do so as an article of faith, without significant evidence in your favor, and against logic and evolutionary theory that suggests otherwise.

How many other species are there that have a developed sense of self-awareness and individualism?

If rights are a human construct, then they are subject to change as humanity does.

Yes and no. The definition of a right will not change, the spectrum and limitation of rights will change.

If rights are subject to change then they are essentially worthless for judging the morality of an action, as the rights humanity decides we have in future may not be the same as those we have now.

That is how some people see it. However, I see, much like the video proposes, any unconsented removal of rights as being immoral. So you would have right to unlimited action up until said action limits another's rights.

While it may be difficult to apply, it is an objective view of morality as defined by rights that would be constant no matter how the spectrum of rights grows.

So I say the only reasonable moral system must be based upon rights. At least thats how I see it.

I think I may go back through all of my posts where I talk about rights and morality and condense them into one super post. Then I can just like people to it when I disagree.

Rights come with the reasonable ability to comprehend them, a brain dead person would have no reasonable ability to comprehend any rights, therefore they have no rights.

What about a 'brain dead' person who can feel pain? (Schaivo had to be given copious amounts of morphine to ease the pain of her starvation)

What about a 'brain dead' person who can feel pain? (Schaivo had to be given copious amounts of morphine to ease the pain of her starvation)

No, she was given copious amounts of morphine to shut the parents and supporters up. The autopsy made it quite clear there was nothing left in that empty shell which could conciously feel pain.

Rights come with the reasonable ability to comprehend them, a brain dead person would have no reasonable ability to comprehend any rights, therefore they have no rights.

So according to you babies, demented people and the mentally handicapped have no rights - while law students have more rights than most other humans since they understand their rights better ?

Agreed. Humans are the superior life form on earth.

But why should "being superior" need to equal "mistreating inferiors" ?

So according to you babies, demented people and the mentally handicapped have no rights - while law students have more rights than most other humans since they understand their rights better ?

Let me start by stating that rights are ability and opportunity to perform any action. Without interference from others, our rights are bound only by our ability, we can do anything that we are able to do ourselves. Now when we add human interactions we have to account for the opportunity. People will limit your ability to perform actions, be it for their own safety or to oppress you. This is the nature of government, it is a construct of society in order to determine which rights of actions the members of society should maintain in their social interaction.

So based on your very existence you have rights that are only bound by your own abilities to perform actions. By your membership in society, you have rights that are bound by what the rest of society believes is safe.

So, for the first part, yes children and mentally handicapped people have a diminished comprehension of rights, so they have fewer rights based on their own diminished ability(they don't understand how to use their right) or government restriction (it would be unsafe to allow them to use their rights.)

To say that law students have added rights is a mischaracterisation. It is true to say that attorneys have extra rights in those areas were they have specialised training. But it goes for plumbers too, they have rights that others don't have. But there is nothing barring others from pursuing those rights also.

Heh, I like the bit where it says property is the sum of liberty and life. I'd love to know how they jumped to that conclusion.

Heh, I like the bit where it says property is the sum of liberty and life. I'd love to know how they jumped to that conclusion.

All of life is the spending of labor, one cannot live without using labor to do so.

Labor has no value until combined with natural resources.

Liberty is the freedom to control one's own existence, to own one's labor.


So, if someone is to survive, he must spend his labor, if he is to have liberty he must have control over this labor. So to combine labor and liberty one must have control over the results. Property is the legal right to claim the results of one's labor.


Life + Liberty = Property

That video had about as much philosophical worth as Star Wars Episode 2 had well-written dialogue.

Hooyah!
The video seemed to be very self-indulgent and make selfless acts seem irrellevant.

My life is not my own when the People have need of it.

I've seen it, and it's basically a rehashing of my personal beliefs.

Hooyah!
The video seemed to be very self-indulgent and make selfless acts seem irrellevant.

what good are selfless acts when you have no liberty...you can very well state that the PATRIOT Act is selfless, because it claims to help the "many," while sacrificing the liberties of the "few."

So, for the first part, yes children and mentally handicapped people have a diminished comprehension of rights, so they have fewer rights based on their own diminished ability(they don't understand how to use their right) or government restriction (it would be unsafe to allow them to use their rights.)

The reasoning is valid - but it does not entirely correspond to how most countries make their laws. It is not legal to steal a demented womans money for instance, even if she does not remember she has it. Everyone is given a minumum of rights, solely because they are human. Most people will not know all those rights - but in the Laws eyes they do have them. Compare it with cancer: you may not completely understand what the disease actually is, but that doesn't mean you can't have it.

Are you against this contruct ?

To say that law students have added rights is a mischaracterisation. It is true to say that attorneys have extra rights in those areas were they have specialised training. But it goes for plumbers too, they have rights that others don't have. But there is nothing barring others from pursuing those rights also.

Except actual ability of course.
Does the statement "rights are based on individuals, not on species" correspond with your views ?

Heh, I like the bit where it says property is the sum of liberty and life. I'd love to know how they jumped to that conclusion.


It ties into the belief the all rights descend from and are subordinate to property rights. This would, apparently, include human rights. You know, like the right to live with dignity, the right not to starve to death, the right not to freeze to death on the street, the right not be oppressed. Stuff like that.

Hooyah!
The video seemed to be very self-indulgent and make selfless acts seem irrellevant.


Agreed. I'll not condede that selflessness is irrelevant, though some would have us believe that.

Agreed. Humans are the superior life form on earth.

Consent does not apply to lower life.

Exactly right. Humans are sentient, therefore they have rights. Lower life is not sentient.

It ties into the belief the all rights descend from and are subordinate to property rights. This would, apparently, include human rights.

A typically superficial response. How, pray tell me, could you have free speech; freedom of assembly; freedom of movement; freedom of worship; etc, without property rights?

You can't.

If you have no right to own printing presses; microphones (and other sound equipment; computers; paper; telephones; even lecturns; or property to exchange for the use of these, then you cannot be said to have free speech, because the means through which you can disseminate your ideas are not open to you. You cannot own them, and you cannot exchange property to use this technology owned by others.

You may well say that having to buy advertising means that you don't really have free speech, but for one to accept that, one must accept that you have the right to steal.

To freedom of assembly. It seems to me that to assemble, you must have some sort of space in which to do so. Public areas are controlled by the government, therefore the only way to really have freedom of assembly, one must have the right to own property (either the meeting places themselves, or property to exchange for their use). Even if that space is virtual, as it is here, the same applies. To be able to read and post here without government interference, we must have the right to own computers etc, or rent them from private owners.

The same applies to freedom of movement. You can't have it without being able to own the means of movement, vehicles, or the property to exchange for their use (payment of fares). A government that completely "socialises" property can say that freedom of movement exists, but since the government owns all the means of transportation, one can only go where the government permits.

the right to live [in] dignity

That is not a right. It is, depending on the individual, a natural condition, or an impossibility. One can face the worst impositions and tests, and maintain dignity. One can maintain dignity in front of a firing squad. One can, conversly, be undignified in any situation.

the right not to starve to death

That is an entitlement, not a right. The difference is that an entitlement must be extracted from someone else, a right imposes nothing on others.

Hooyah!
The video seemed to be very self-indulgent and make selfless acts seem irrellevant.

There is no such thing as a selfless act, and enforced selflessness is irrelevant.

There is no such thing as a selfless act, and enforced selflessness is irrelevant.

Wow, I've never met anyone who was so cynical they made me look like a starry-eyed optimist.

Exactly right. Humans are sentient, therefore they have rights. Lower life is not sentient.



A typically superficial response. How, pray tell me, could you have free speech; freedom of assembly; freedom of movement; freedom of worship; etc, without property rights?

You can't.

If you have no right to own printing presses; microphones (and other sound equipment; computers; paper; telephones; even lecturns; or property to exchange for the use of these, then you cannot be said to have free speech, because the means through which you can disseminate your ideas are not open to you. You cannot own them, and you cannot exchange property to use this technology owned by others.

You may well say that having to buy advertising means that you don't really have free speech, but for one to accept that, one must accept that you have the right to steal.

To freedom of assembly. It seems to me that to assemble, you must have some sort of space in which to do so. Public areas are controlled by the government, therefore the only way to really have freedom of assembly, one must have the right to own property (either the meeting places themselves, or property to exchange for their use). Even if that space is virtual, as it is here, the same applies. To be able to read and post here without government interference, we must have the right to own computers etc, or rent them from private owners.

The same applies to freedom of movement. You can't have it without being able to own the means of movement, vehicles, or the property to exchange for their use (payment of fares). A government that completely "socialises" property can say that freedom of movement exists, but since the government owns all the means of transportation, one can only go where the government permits.



That is not a right. It is, depending on the individual, a natural condition, or an impossibility. One can face the worst impositions and tests, and maintain dignity. One can maintain dignity in front of a firing squad. One can, conversly, be undignified in any situation.



That is an entitlement, not a right. The difference is that an entitlement must be extracted from someone else, a right imposes nothing on others.


Well, I can't compete with the eloquence of your superficial arguements. I guess I'll have to join the GOP now. :rolleyes: Give a justification for people starving. Go ahead. We're all waiting. And what, in your opinion, makes a person worthy of dignity?

Wow, I've never met anyone who was so cynical they made me look like a starry-eyed optimist.

All human action are motivated by personal desires for self-satisfaction.

And selfless acts are irrelevant to freedom.

Well, I can't compete with the eloquence of your superficial arguements.

This is obvious.

Give a justification for people starving. Go ahead. We're all waiting. And what, in your opinion, makes a person worthy of dignity?

Why would we need to justify starvation?

And the entire justification for liberal individualism is that all people are worthy of dignity. That everyone deserves the respect of the rest of society and, as a result, should receive liberty from the rest of society.

Well, I can't compete with the eloquence of your superficial arguements.

Didn't see a refutation in your post.

Give a justification for people starving.

Irrelevant point, as VO said.

Go ahead. We're all waiting. And what, in your opinion, makes a person worthy of dignity?

What VO said. Also, if a man is to lvie in dignity, it is up to him. A man may be treated with dignity, and yet have none, and live with no dignity. See "Bill KKKlintoon"

Maineiacs, you sort of prove that a man can be treated with dignity, and yet have none. Can you refute the argument that without property rights, there are no other rights?