E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-11-2013, 08:05 PM   #41
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentaruu View Post
definitely an arguable idea
absolutely!
MDydinanM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 08:05 PM   #42
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
More Modern Way of Living (lol)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
You are arguing two different things, I guess they didn't teach you that at engineering law school
No, I'm not. But you can't comprehend that.


Sent from BimmerApp mobile app
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 08:05 PM   #43
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
/\

MDydinanM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 08:18 PM   #44
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: Beach Cruiser
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Yes, innate rights such as expression and protection are the same as the governments right to levy a tax. #not

Apples and Chevys
__________________
“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin

"You don’t burn books because they’re irrelevant. You burn books because you’re terrified that they’re not. You don’t muzzle people who have no audience. You muzzle people only when their voices are amplified far beyond your liking."
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 08:25 PM   #45
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Yes, innate rights such as expression and protection are the same as the governments right to levy a tax. #not

Apples and Chevys
I think the point is that the "innate-ness" of rights may not exist.
MDydinanM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 08:46 PM   #46
NOVAbimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 12,568
My Ride: 14 Impala FXST M796
More Modern Way of Living (lol)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MDydinanM View Post
I think it depends on what you mean equal. In terms of rights?

What I'm getting at is in one context, no I don't think people are born equal. Some people are smarter than others. Some are physically stronger. Some are better at doing A, B, C than the other person.

It is my opinion that one of the roles of the government is to levy rights and laws as to protect people from themselves (such as an unfair advantage).
Do you believe that you have the innate right to speak your mind? Or do you believe that a 200 year old piece of paper allows you to speak your mind?

Would it be ok with you if tomorrow you were told you can no longer speak your mind because the paper is now out of date? The paper grants that right, right? So it's no big deal if the paper takes it away?
__________________
NOVAbimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 08:51 PM   #47
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: Beach Cruiser
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
The point is that nobody can take away your right to speak or defend yourself. The goverment doesn't give you these rights. Goverment gets its rights from the people. The people don't have the right to ban speech, worship or self defense...thus the people can't give the goverment that right. Therefore, the goverment can't give that right.
__________________
“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin

"You don’t burn books because they’re irrelevant. You burn books because you’re terrified that they’re not. You don’t muzzle people who have no audience. You muzzle people only when their voices are amplified far beyond your liking."
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 09:02 PM   #48
JonJon
Tinfoilhatatarian
 
JonJon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: One of the most evil states ever to exist
Posts: 3,480
My Ride: .
Send a message via AIM to JonJon
It's so simple... It's painful people don't understand.

Forget understanding it! People lack the backbone to demand innate rights
__________________
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
I agree with JonJon.
JonJon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 09:10 PM   #49
NOVAbimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 12,568
My Ride: 14 Impala FXST M796
More Modern Way of Living (lol)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJon View Post
It's so simple... It's painful people don't understand.

Forget understanding it! People lack the backbone to demand innate rights
I, for one, praise the generosity of our government that graciously grants us our privileges such as free speech and protection from unreasonable search and seizure. I will do anything for the government to make sure they don't repeal these, but would completely understand if they chose to do so in order to make me safer.
__________________
NOVAbimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 09:18 PM   #50
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 557
My Ride: A Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentaruu View Post
I wasn't asking what a book said. I was asking what people believed. do you believe that people are naturally born with equal rights? I have no interest in reading the book. I am simply looking for an opinion.
MDydinanM got it right. My opinion is directly in line with Hobbes. Considering the influence had on the founding fathers I am surprised his work doesn't interest you.

It is such a complicated question and answering yes or no is useless without a discussion. If the nature of man is a state of war and thus seeks dominance over other man can you really say that the weaker individual is born free? Being weaker makes him vulnerable to the strong. How does every man then enjoy these "natural born" rights if he resides in a weaker order?
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 09:20 PM   #51
NOVAbimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 12,568
My Ride: 14 Impala FXST M796
More Modern Way of Living (lol)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
MDydinanM got it right. My opinion is directly in line with Hobbes. Considering the influence had on the founding fathers I am surprised his work doesn't interest you.

It is such a complicated question and answering yes or no is useless without a discussion. If the nature of man is a state of war and thus seeks dominance over other man can you really say that the weaker individual is born free? Being weaker makes him vulnerable to the strong. How does every man then enjoy these "natural born" rights if he resides in a weaker order?
So you believe that the natural state of man is to be beholden to the whims of a stronger person, and that anything you have is what you can take or what you're allowed to have?
__________________
NOVAbimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 09:23 PM   #52
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
Do you believe that you have the innate right to speak your mind? Or do you believe that a 200 year old piece of paper allows you to speak your mind?

Would it be ok with you if tomorrow you were told you can no longer speak your mind because the paper is now out of date? The paper grants that right, right? So it's no big deal if the paper takes it away?
I argue that innate rights, those that people are born with and thus a "natural right" because it derives from a "divine power" may not exist. Certainly so if you are not religious and/or do not believe in divine power.

Since I'm not religious I therefore do not believe in some divine right that trace to rights being innate. As such, I believe I can do what I want to do so long as I'm allowed/granted the right to do it with an understanding not everything is all inclusive. Using your words, a 200 year old paper continues to exist because it has not been changed for that particular point in that clause. However, it can be changed given the clause in the Constitution that allows for changes. Will it happen? Doubt it. But if it does, it would take away your right to and protection of freedom of expression

Furthermore, if we all, as humans, have "innate" rights, then why is it only applicable to Americans? Why is it some countries overseas have a different interpretation of rights and what people can or can't do? Why has history shown otherwise?

Lastly, where does the term "innate" rights derive from? It's a human construct.

Last edited by MDydinanM; 08-11-2013 at 09:31 PM.
MDydinanM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 09:24 PM   #53
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJon View Post
It's so simple... It's painful people don't understand.

Forget understanding it! People lack the backbone to demand innate rights
prove innate rights exist.
MDydinanM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 09:38 PM   #54
NOVAbimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 12,568
My Ride: 14 Impala FXST M796
More Modern Way of Living (lol)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MDydinanM View Post
I argue that innate rights, those that people are born with and thus a "natural right" because it derives from a "divine power" may not exist. Certainly so if you are not religious and/or do not believe in divine power.

Since I'm not religious I therefore do not believe in some divine right that trace to rights being innate. As such, I believe I can do what I want to do so long as I'm allowed/granted the right to do it with an understanding not everything is all inclusive. Using your words, a 200 year old paper continues to exist because it has not been changed for that particular point in that clause. However, it can be changed given the clause in the Constitution that allows for changes. Will it happen? Doubt it. But if it does, it would take away your right to and protection of freedom of expression

Furthermore, if we all, as humans, have "innate" rights, then why is it only applicable to Americans? Why is it some countries overseas have a different interpretation of rights and what people can or can't do? Why has history shown otherwise?

Lastly, where does the term "innate" rights derive from? It's a human construct.
So they're not really rights, they're all privileges that can rightly be stripped at any time?
__________________
NOVAbimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 09:39 PM   #55
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 557
My Ride: A Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
So you believe that the natural state of man is to be beholden to the whims of a stronger person, and that anything you have is what you can take or what you're allowed to have?
Yes. My favorite quote from the Melian Dialogue:

Quote:
The strong do as they can and the weak suffer what they must
I think it is fitting to describe the natural state of man. States are composed of men. Observing how they interact in the anarchic environment is a reflection of the true nature of man. States seek survival and domination in relation to other states. Man does as well in relation to other men.

You are not proposing that natural state of man encourage cooperation, and alliance building? That would be quite liberal of you.
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 09:42 PM   #56
NOVAbimmer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 12,568
My Ride: 14 Impala FXST M796
More Modern Way of Living (lol)

I'm quite liberal in my views (little 'l'). But I don't believe that we're born in chains, destined only to serve someone stronger than ourselves.




Sent from BimmerApp mobile app
__________________
NOVAbimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 09:49 PM   #57
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
So they're not really rights, they're all privileges that can rightly be stripped at any time?
If your world view is in line with Legal Realism/Positivism, then in a sense, yes.

If you read earlier in this thread, I made reference to the Declaration of Independence that states that we Americans have unalienable rights...the rights to life, liberty, etc.

In a very basic view, if a person can take away another person's life, then how can it be unalienable? The person died. His "unalienable" right to life was taken away. Despite JJ's mocking comment, that doesn't mean to take another man's life should not be illegal. Case in point is Anwar al Alaki who was an American citizen that technically was afforded all the rights of a US citizen and "innate" rights as well. As you know, he was killed by our government. His innate right to life was taken away.

Along similar lines, if the freedom of expression is an innate right, what's stopping another person or government from taking it away? At any moment in time, a person or govenment can strip a person's right to do so in any number of ways. This is evidenced in places overseas, say Iran, where citizens who speak out against the government end up in prison, "disappeared" or killed. Hence my comment on if rights are "innate" therefore they must be universal but why is it that it only applies to Americans then? Or other Western countries, say the UK? Therefore, in a realist sense, our Constitution grants and protects those rights for us, as Americans.

Let me reiterate that I'm merely stating an opinion. I concede that there are many views on the Constitution and yours, JJs, AoG is a prevalent view. I'm not saying you or they are wrong, what I am saying it's an interpretation - the more popular one at that.

Last edited by MDydinanM; 08-11-2013 at 09:56 PM.
MDydinanM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 09:53 PM   #58
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 557
My Ride: A Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
I'm quite liberal in my views (little 'l'). But I don't believe that we're born in chains, destined only to serve someone stronger than ourselves.

Sent from BimmerApp mobile app
Certainly not now. Despite the anti-government crowd, we are not like that because of the social contracts that exist between people and government. The government has been provided the capability and the responsibility to ensure that its citizens are born free, equal, and able to exercise their rights. The government also has the ability to seek revenge on behalf of the citizenry for those that wish to take action against the rights of its citizens*. Strip all those protections away and you create an environment where the stronger do what they will at the cost of the weak.

*I am speaking ideologically not specifically to our government because I see the argument there.
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 09:58 PM   #59
JonJon
Tinfoilhatatarian
 
JonJon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: One of the most evil states ever to exist
Posts: 3,480
My Ride: .
Send a message via AIM to JonJon
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
I, for one, praise the generosity of our government that graciously grants us our privileges such as free speech and protection from unreasonable search and seizure. I will do anything for the government to make sure they don't repeal these, but would completely understand if they chose to do so in order to make me safer.
as funny as that was to read... MANY live their lives in that view

Quote:
Originally Posted by MDydinanM View Post
prove innate rights exist.
Prove it? There is nothing to prove. That fact that there are those that CAN and DO infringe on those rights by way of crime and oppression DOESN'T negate the fact that you have them.

Are you really arguing with me that you don't have the right to live free, defend yourself, express yourself? Holy Fvck. Aren't you late for a shearing appointment?
__________________
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
I agree with JonJon.

Last edited by JonJon; 08-11-2013 at 10:00 PM.
JonJon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 10:05 PM   #60
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJon View Post
as funny as that was to read... MANY live their lives in that view



Prove it? There is nothing to prove. That fact that there are those that CAN and DO infringe on those rights by way of crime and oppression DOESN'T negate the fact that you have them.

Are you really arguing with me that you don't have the right to live free, defend yourself, express yourself? Holy Fvck. Aren't you late for a shearing appointment?
I'm asking you to prove innate rights exist. My point is - which you continue to miss -it's the same (to me) as asking to prove God exists. I'm sorry a simpleton like you can't understand that.

Now define freedom. In what sense? Is man free or do we live in a state akin to causal determinism?
MDydinanM is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use