Science and Statism

[Siro]

As for statism, I get it. You don't like it. Great! You want the smallest government possible... great! But that's where humanity started, little to no government. So it's been tried. So has big government. It's all been tried, and it's all failed. Just like capitalism will fail, communism will fail, socialism will fail, monarchies, democracies, social dictatorships, unitary parliamentary constitutional republics, oligarchies, and theocracies.

How do you suppose we've come this far if all systems fail? Capitalism already succeeded. We're actually slowly approaching a post-capitalist society (in a couple of hundred years, max). If it's going to fail, it better do it quickly. Similarly, democracy is already a successful endeavor. It has helped improve people's lives immeasurably, and caused an incredible drop in conflict and violence(I'm sure you know that democracies never go to war with one another). I don't want to be rude, but this sounds like Yoda wisdom, and not a meaningful analysis. Unless you're making a point that I don't quite grasp, in which case I apologize.

What happens when statists control the funding for scientific research? Ted Cruz looking like an idiot, a ******* that probably looks a lot like yourself bringing a snowball in to disprove global warming, and the house special committee overseeing space and technology leadership asking stupid questions.

The government already funds the sciences. There is no problem with that, and public funding for basic research is important for continuing development. I agree that we run the risk of ignoramuses controlling funding in an irrational or self-interested way, but the alternative is massive reduction is science output.

I'm not sure how to understand your opinion, but if you're saying that the government needs fixing, and not removal, then we're on the same page.

 

[babe]

Apparently it is, so let me elaborate first on my statement:

Go at it a few more years before you even bother. Babe and I have gone the rounds before, and it's really not worth the struggle unless you can laugh with the occasional "Your mom". I think maybe three or four of my posts to babe have made any real difference in the matter.

As for statism, I get it. You don't like it. Great! You want the smallest government possible... great! But that's where humanity started, little to no government. So it's been tried. So has big government. It's all been tried, and it's all failed. Just like capitalism will fail, communism will fail, socialism will fail, monarchies, democracies, social dictatorships, unitary parliamentary constitutional republics, oligarchies, and theocracies.

Why that matters, and speaking to babe's original post:

Yes, Science is a generally understood as impartial and unbiased efforts to acquire objective understanding of things. That's a FAIR definition.

Statism is a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs. In OUR government, our leaders, who do have considerable pull bordering on statism, often don't run with the science. That speaks of the people electing those leaders, and the dollars swaying those leaders once they arrive in office.

What happens when statists control the funding for scientific research? Ted Cruz looking like an idiot, a ******* that probably looks a lot like yourself bringing a snowball in to disprove global warming, and the house special committee overseeing space and technology leadership asking stupid questions.

But being an ignorant little twit, you probably didn't bother reading my soapbox thread that can be found here:

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?32537-Education-level-of-Committee&highlight=Space+Technology

that expresses, I believe, parts of the same issue babe's trying to outline here; Either Ignorance or Corruption has gotten to our leaders, and it needs to be addressed.

But I must be some sack of **** that never thinks about these things and is only ever good for derail/trolling... right?

I'll look at that thread you linked. Might be better than just arguing ignorantly here.

With scientists sometimes being lobbied for specific results, it is still difficult for the majority of people to make the call on it, any more than politicians who flunked chemistry 101. My thesis is that science itself, even if not improperly influenced politically, can still have a sort of internal inertial politics. Many great scientists have seen that while be considered nutjobs. I consider that governments lack the expertise or integrity to license speech, or study. I don't know many people who have the independent wealth and talent to conduct research, and in a corporate environment there's politics too, perhaps pressing towards immediate profits and shareholder value.

The least we can do is care about integrity, maintaining the fundamentals of scientific discipline.

well, that and maintain basic human rights to independent opinion, free speech, and access to information.

 

[Jamezz]

Apparently it is, so let me elaborate first on my statement:

Go at it a few more years before you even bother. Babe and I have gone the rounds before, and it's really not worth the struggle unless you can laugh with the occasional "Your mom". I think maybe three or four of my posts to babe have made any real difference in the matter.

As for statism, I get it. You don't like it. Great! You want the smallest government possible... great! But that's where humanity started, little to no government. So it's been tried. So has big government. It's all been tried, and it's all failed. Just like capitalism will fail, communism will fail, socialism will fail, monarchies, democracies, social dictatorships, unitary parliamentary constitutional republics, oligarchies, and theocracies.

Why that matters, and speaking to babe's original post:

Yes, Science is a generally understood as impartial and unbiased efforts to acquire objective understanding of things. That's a FAIR definition.

Statism is a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs. In OUR government, our leaders, who do have considerable pull bordering on statism, often don't run with the science. That speaks of the people electing those leaders, and the dollars swaying those leaders once they arrive in office.

What happens when statists control the funding for scientific research? Ted Cruz looking like an idiot, a ******* that probably looks a lot like yourself bringing a snowball in to disprove global warming, and the house special committee overseeing space and technology leadership asking stupid questions.

But being an ignorant little twit, you probably didn't bother reading my soapbox thread that can be found here:

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?32537-Education-level-of-Committee&highlight=Space+Technology

that expresses, I believe, parts of the same issue babe's trying to outline here; Either Ignorance or Corruption has gotten to our leaders, and it needs to be addressed.

But I must be some sack of **** that never thinks about these things and is only ever good for derail/trolling... right?

Well that's what I perceived for a moment, but it looks like you have some smarts after all. Now I don't believe it's ignorance what has gotten to our leaders, but pure evil. Also, I think it's funny when people affirm that Capitalism has failed. Would you call what we live in a Capitalism? Here in the US? How can it be a Capitalism when we don't allow banks, including the Federal Reserve or what should more accurately be called the American Central Bank to go bankrupt. They are nothing but private corporations after all. This ain't no Capitalism, this is a lie, a lie we're all caught in just going about the ways of our every day work.

 

[Harambe]

How do you suppose we've come this far if all systems fail? Capitalism already succeeded. We're actually slowly approaching a post-capitalist society (in a couple of hundred years, max). If it's going to fail, it better do it quickly. Similarly, democracy is already a successful endeavor. It has helped improve people's lives immeasurably, and caused an incredible drop in conflict and violence(I'm sure you know that democracies never go to war with one another). I don't want to be rude, but this sounds like Yoda wisdom, and not a meaningful analysis. Unless you're making a point that I don't quite grasp, in which case I apologize.

The first government to ever exist... Doesn't exist. That's a fail. In SCIENCE, fail is ok, as you learn from it and move on.

Here's a link to a simplified article(5 pages) written by a history professor from the University of Georgia that's been cited 6 times(as reported from google scholar)

https://www.uvm.edu/~wgibson/Classes/11f09/Student_submitted_materials/Minsky_crisis.pdf

Capitalism has failed the US and others multiple times, resulting in at best Depressions, at worst toppled governments. We recover using a series of socialist tactics(redistributions). I find it interesting that we're ok with this, as opposed to trying something else. Science is you try something, watch it fail, observe why it failed, try it again but differently. I'm not seeing the differently part anywhere near often enough, just the same old same old again and again.

Democracies have also failed; most recently Thailand. We don't even live in a Democracy here in the states... we're a constitutional republic at best. Now, your definition for success is clearly different than the obvious(taken over the world), and that's cool too. I see failure, and I learn from it... what has failed X done for us, how can we leverage that and use it in our next grand attempt at perfection?

The government already funds the sciences. There is no problem with that, and public funding for basic research is important for continuing development. I agree that we run the risk of ignoramuses controlling funding in an irrational or self-interested way, but the alternative is massive reduction is science output.

I'm not sure how to understand your opinion, but if you're saying that the government needs fixing, and not removal, then we're on the same page.

The government should fund sciences, but it should do more and actually accept the outcomes. We're not seeing enough of the use, just more pushback. I can't handle that in the slightest.

And no, we're not all that far off in what to do with the government. I'm not a revolutionary, nor am I really a proponent of less government. I'm a guy trying to make the world better. You can't make the lives of millions perfect in one foul swoop... you chip away at it. We do need fixing. And we can do that. We just have to make an effort. I can see that we're not, as we're making/passing/changing laws at a rate slower than ever, even though we have more information available faster than ever. And it's not even close.

 

[Harambe]

Well that's what I perceived for a moment, but it looks like you have some smarts after all. Now I don't believe it's ignorance what has gotten to our leaders, but pure evil. Also, I think it's funny when people affirm that Capitalism has failed. Would you call what we live in a Capitalism? Here in the US? How can it be a Capitalism when we don't allow banks, including the Federal Reserve or what should more accurately be called the American Central Bank to go bankrupt. They are nothing but private corporations after all. This ain't no Capitalism, this is a lie, a lie we're all caught in just going about the ways of our every day work.

The fact that we had to bail them out proves that our way of life(living through X bank) that we had intended to be capitalism proves my point. We tried capitalism, it failed, we admitted it and bailed them out. Then we tried to make laws to stop it from happening again... and well that didn't happen. Thanks WORST CONGRESS EVER!

 

[Harambe]

I'll look at that thread you linked. Might be better than just arguing ignorantly here.

With scientists sometimes being lobbied for specific results, it is still difficult for the majority of people to make the call on it, any more than politicians who flunked chemistry 101. My thesis is that science itself, even if not improperly influenced politically, can still have a sort of internal inertial politics. Many great scientists have seen that while be considered nutjobs. I consider that governments lack the expertise or integrity to license speech, or study. I don't know many people who have the independent wealth and talent to conduct research, and in a corporate environment there's politics too, perhaps pressing towards immediate profits and shareholder value.

The least we can do is care about integrity, maintaining the fundamentals of scientific discipline.

well, that and maintain basic human rights to independent opinion, free speech, and access to information.

Thanks Capitalism!

 

[babe]

Like I said, you consider your position to be inherently true (as evidenced by that statement), and in our previous debates, you have the tendency to ignore what I'm saying and to keep singing to your own tune.



There is no such thing as a state of nature. Hunting with stone weapons in the jungle is just as much in our state of nature as using the iPhone and building space stations. They just occurred at different points in time. The arbitrary Rousseau-ian imposition on our nature is thus an invalid starting point for any debate. The rest of what you said about the necessity of government is true.



Yes. We've had problems with corporations going wrong, individuals going wrong, and everything else in between. Nothing is absolute, and we're discussing the relative merits of each perspective.



Putting limits on the role and power of any organization is essential. I have no disagreement with this. But we also have to recognize that the Founders were not all-knowing and they lived in a different age. We cannot expect a stasis of thought due to religious attachment to a certain set of ideals without continuous evaluation of the value of such ideals.



I don't understand what you're saying. Government is created by individuals. It is in a way superior to the individual as it is made up by more than 1 individual. But the whole argument is fallacious. What matters is that for any kind of moral law to make sense, it has to be established at a level higher than the individual's. The only response to "I don't care if something is right or wrong, I'll harm someone if it benefits me" is society's retaliation. We're either in free competition with one another is a world with no moral rule (apart from that of whatever individual gains more power relative to others), or we exist under the terms of a social contract that is above any individual. I think the latter makes for a much more productive and just world. The same applies to human rights. They do not exist outside of human definitions, and cannot be defended without collective action.



It's nice to see someone recognize the myth of the Dark Ages. Science did indeed flourish in the early middle ages in the ME and in the late middle ages in Europe. But two things are worth mentioning. One, it was often supported by government funding (I'm including the Church in Europe) like the French universities of the 1300s, or the scientists of the Caliph's courts. Secondly, science was much MUCH simpler back then, and individuals could make significant progress on their own, with little funding as long as they're born into decent wealth. Nowadays, complexity requires management. This does not necessarily mean the government, but since the government is the only collectivist institution that is supposed to work for the public good (as opposed to merchants competing for resources), it makes for the best managing body. It is also very important that we maintain the continuity of progress, which again necessitates collectivist action that exist above the level of individual. I'm not interested in the Greek's fleeting (if phenomenal) success. I am interested in the continuation of the scientific path until the very end. This again requires collectivist action.

A just government is necessary for keeping the peace, enforcing objective morality, tackling large problems (or do we leave it to American individuals to try to tackle green house emissions in India?), and countless other functions. Nobody is saying that the government should be all that exists. I think a libertarian approach to society that focuses on the dynamics of individual competition and accomplishment is essential to a free and prosperous society, but the goal is difficult to achieve without the existence of institutions that can supersede the will of the individual, if necessary.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Siro again

This is an excellent response. Responses like this can advance a discussion and even change some people's understanding or set points.

It is all about the specifics. Christians, if they haven't reflected on it lately, have idealized notions of say Jesus or God being in control of everything, including themselves, and are OK with it because they vest trust in Jesus or God.

Some fairly totalitarian leaders have worked assiduously to create a national climate of idolization and belief in the virtue of a specific leader. Americans may have created such an idol in their concept of the representative government responsive to the voting public. There is no question societies can sometimes go wrong, however organized or led.

I would try to uphold the wisdom of American founders because at that point in time they placed respect for individual rights in high standing, answering directly against recent abuses by British overseers. I would maintain a philosophical value that an individual has certain inalienable rights, with the right to consent to government accountable to people for its actions.

Among the innate rights I think we need to recognize is the rights of individual choice in regards to personal health, to life, and a fairly long list of rights involving our thinking and decision processes, and our choice of actions. Voluntary compliance with policies deemed scientifically sound is not out of the question. If government wants to impose limits on individual actions for specific reasons it may not be possible to secure popular support sometimes, but incentives can sometimes be effective.

Why are innate rights necessary, or even inviolable? Because we are human with certain human capacities, because we exist and deserve that respect. Because society at large should not claim superior rights than those claimed by individuals. Because government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Because people collectively brought the government into existence acting on the rights they held individually. In America, a lot of people left this country when we established our independence from Great Britain, and went to Canada. This is proof that individual people should not have to accept a form of government imposed upon them by collective actions of others. And that is the logic of why less government is inherently better government when referencing actions that impact personal decisions or values.

Your example in referencing how to secure policies concerning things that have global impact, like pollution emissions, is a good one for my point. Personal rights include the right to breathe clean air, to drink clean water, and to have a sanitary environment as opposed to one where serious threats to these personal rights is tolerated. It is in fact the recognition of individual rights like these that legitimizes national or international implementation of policies worldwide.

That would also be a way to legitimize the expenditure of public funds on research.

 

[Jamezz]

The fact that we had to bail them out proves that our way of life(living through X bank) that we had intended to be capitalism proves my point. We tried capitalism, it failed, we admitted it and bailed them out. Then we tried to make laws to stop it from happening again... and well that didn't happen. Thanks WORST CONGRESS EVER!

How can something that hasn't existed since 1914 fail? Only previous to this year it was true Capitalism and the US Economy was blooming. Then the Federal Act Bill was introduced and we let the 'fake Jewish' bankers overrule the American Congress. And you know, if you grow the balls to try to overturn this you get shot. Now let's go ahead and enjoy the pathetic freak show the Presidential race is next year, with the bull **** zionist talk you get to see during the Presidential debates.

 

[Harambe]

How can something that hasn't existed since 1914 fail? Only previous to this year it was true Capitalism and the US Economy was blooming. Then the Federal Act Bill was introduced and we let the 'fake Jewish' bankers overrule the American Congress. And you know, if you grow the balls to try to overturn this you get shot. Now let's go ahead and enjoy the pathetic freak show the Presidential race is next year, with the bull **** zionist talk you get to see during the Presidential debates.

There's not a qualifying mark that makes you a Capitalist country. It's not like you've got a certifying board that comes in, tests the water, and gives you a yes or no. You apply your principles, and show what you are with your actions. The only difference from what I said, and what you just said is that we did it in 1914 instead of 2008. Great... capitalism failed earlier.

What about it?

 

[Siro]

I would try to uphold the wisdom of American founders because at that point in time they placed respect for individual rights in high standing, answering directly against recent abuses by British overseers. I would maintain a philosophical value that an individual has certain inalienable rights, with the right to consent to government accountable to people for its actions.

Among the innate rights I think we need to recognize is the rights of individual choice in regards to personal health, to life, and a fairly long list of rights involving our thinking and decision processes, and our choice of actions. Voluntary compliance with policies deemed scientifically sound is not out of the question. If government wants to impose limits on individual actions for specific reasons it may not be possible to secure popular support sometimes, but incentives can sometimes be effective.

Why are innate rights necessary, or even inviolable? Because we are human with certain human capacities, because we exist and deserve that respect. Because society at large should not claim superior rights than those claimed by individuals. Because government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Because people collectively brought the government into existence acting on the rights they held individually. In America, a lot of people left this country when we established our independence from Great Britain, and went to Canada. This is proof that individual people should not have to accept a form of government imposed upon them by collective actions of others. And that is the logic of why less government is inherently better government when referencing actions that impact personal decisions or values.

This is the source of our philosophical differences; the idea of innate versus given rights. The American Founders subscribed to the idea of inherent rights because they were all either theists, or at the very least, deists. If you believe a deity is the source (or guide) of morality, then it would make sense that moral beings it created inherit certain innate rights. Unfortunately, that position is not on solid grounds because it is based on a first principle that does not stem from general consensus reality. It conforms with THEIR view of reality, but since the existence of such deity is not confirmed through objective means (keep in mind that not only its existence that must be verified, but also the attributes that makes it a legitimate law giver), their philosophy does not conform to consensus reality. Replacing the word "God" with "nature" solves nothing. It just robs the argument of its meaning.

However, the reason the Founders opted for delegating the moral authority of assigning rights to a super-human entity is that morality (including the question of rights) cannot exist solely the level of the individual. Moral principles, even though they mostly deal with individual behavior, cannot begin and end with the individual. That is because morality, regardless of how objective one tries to make it, still relies on first principles that are, by their nature, irreducible. For example, let's say that morality leans on the axiom that "all moral principles must aim to increase well-being". Once we establish that first principle, then we can use the tools of logic to evaluate whether a certain right, law, or tradition violates that principle. But for that to work, the principle must exist above the level of the individual, because at the end of the day, it is rationally indefensible. Why should well-being be our guide, as opposed to, say, length of hair. The answer is invariably emotional. It is about what we desire our existence to be. This must be created through society because the well-being of one individual does not always coincide with that of another. The only way to ensure both, is if morality is agreed upon super-individually. There is also the question of individuals opting for different first principles, which devalues the whole concept of morality below the level of a society.

Consequently, we must acknowledge that rights are not innate. The fact is, rights are given. The fact is, rights can be taken away. This is not my opinion. This is a fact of life. You can argue that the taking away an "innate" right is illegitimate, and thus it does not count as taking away a right (innate rights cannot be given or taken away). But as I explained above, there is no basis for establishing innate rights if we have no knowledge of a super-human right giver's nature. The best we can do is to give rights that advance the cause of as many individuals as possible. Which, again, is only possible through agents that operate above the level of the individual.

 

[babe]

This is the source of our philosophical differences; the idea of innate versus given rights. The American Founders subscribed to the idea of inherent rights because they were all either theists, or at the very least, deists. If you believe a deity is the source (or guide) of morality, then it would make sense that moral beings it created inherit certain innate rights. Unfortunately, that position is not on solid grounds because it is based on a first principle that does not stem from general consensus reality. It conforms with THEIR view of reality, but since the existence of such deity is not confirmed through objective means (keep in mind that not only its existence that must be verified, but also the attributes that makes it a legitimate law giver), their philosophy does not conform to consensus reality. Replacing the word "God" with "nature" solves nothing. It just robs the argument of its meaning.

However, the reason the Founders opted for delegating the moral authority of assigning rights to a super-human entity is that morality (including the question of rights) cannot exist solely the level of the individual. Moral principles, even though they mostly deal with individual behavior, cannot begin and end with the individual. That is because morality, regardless of how objective one tries to make it, still relies on first principles that are, by their nature, irreducible. For example, let's say that morality leans on the axiom that "all moral principles must aim to increase well-being". Once we establish that first principle, then we can use the tools of logic to evaluate whether a certain right, law, or tradition violates that principle. But for that to work, the principle must exist above the level of the individual, because at the end of the day, it is rationally indefensible. Why should well-being be our guide, as opposed to, say, length of hair. The answer is invariably emotional. It is about what we desire our existence to be. This must be created through society because the well-being of one individual does not always coincide with that of another. The only way to ensure both, is if morality is agreed upon super-individually. There is also the question of individuals opting for different first principles, which devalues the whole concept of morality below the level of a society.

Consequently, we must acknowledge that rights are not innate. The fact is, rights are given. The fact is, rights can be taken away. This is not my opinion. This is a fact of life. You can argue that the taking away an "innate" right is illegitimate, and thus it does not count as taking away a right (innate rights cannot be given or taken away). But as I explained above, there is no basis for establishing innate rights if we have no knowledge of a super-human right giver's nature. The best we can do is to give rights that advance the cause of as many individuals as possible. Which, again, is only possible through agents that operate above the level of the individual.

I think I've said something like this before, but whether God exists or not, we exist. So "inherent rights" are logical constructs developed from examining our natures, including things like human will, or any other power that is inherent in our constitution or nature. The logic flows better if we develop the idea as "equal rights" between individuals in society, and don't accept some folks being somehow superior to others.

I don't know how radical this particular construct appears to you. I didn't get it out of a book on philosophy. I have heard of Rousseau and the idyllic fantasies of the simple man in the woods, but frankly it just seemed to tedious and boring to read. I instead just went out into the woods, or the desert, and formed my own ideas.

Well, I have sought other influences, like posters in JazzFanz. . . .

Sure some of us have a lot of intellectual talents or more education, but the fundamental thing is to try to make it a principle that humans possess the powers they are born with as humans, so far as we can do so.
Governments are often created by an ethnic or cultural dominant set of individuals, or by armies, and people who are somehow different don't always get the same respect. I just make it a point that I support the idea of inherent or innate rights of humans regardless of the qualifications of an empowered elite.

I don't equate "rights" with morals. "rights" are in the objective realm of disproportionate powers accumulated by one man or group over others, and exist in the practical implications of the use of power. If we can succeed in the public mind of creating a sufficiently strong sense of equality, and of "rights", it gets tougher for the toughs to rule inequitably.

 

[Jamezz]

The equality should be brought by the Judicial branch, not the Executive. And the Executive branch should also be entitled to being judged like the rest of individuals in a society. That's why the way in which the members of the Supreme Court are elected is the key to a healthy political system like the one we live under here in the US. Even more so than who is elected President. But yeah, call me when the Federal Reserve starts being held accountable judicially for the ongoing theft that's been going on ever since it was established. Or when Bush or Obama start being held accountable for their war crimes in the name of 'peace and liberty'.

 

[Siro]

I think I've said something like this before, but whether God exists or not, we exist. So "inherent rights" are logical constructs developed from examining our natures, including things like human will, or any other power that is inherent in our constitution or nature. The logic flows better if we develop the idea as "equal rights" between individuals in society, and don't accept some folks being somehow superior to others.

I consider rights and morals to be very closely related, and I will pretty much treat the terms interchangeably here.

I responded to this in my post. Replacing "God" with "nature" solves nothing. Who determines whether something is within our nature? Who determines which things in our nature are moral or immoral? Who decides the morality of competing values? I contend that WE HUMANS do. And the best way to do it is through the use of logic and objective analysis, because those are the tools that have proven to be effective at determining what is and isn't true. It follows that since what is a right is determined by humans, it must be determined above the the level of the individual (for reasons I explained at length in my previous post). If each right is determined by the individual, then they are not rights at all! Just individuals doing what they want. This is the case even if the individual is rational. But if two individuals collaborate in using logic to reach moral conclusions, then they can check each other, and achieve more concrete chain of logic between what should be a right, and why it should be so. They also hold each other accountable for violations of agreed upon principles. Three people would be even better. A society better still. All of human societies would be the ideal outcome. It is the same reason it takes population thresholds for a civilization to start making meaningful progress.

I don't know how radical this particular construct appears to you. I didn't get it out of a book on philosophy. I have heard of Rousseau and the idyllic fantasies of the simple man in the woods, but frankly it just seemed to tedious and boring to read. I instead just went out into the woods, or the desert, and formed my own ideas.

Well, I have sought other influences, like posters in JazzFanz. . . .

Sure some of us have a lot of intellectual talents or more education, but the fundamental thing is to try to make it a principle that humans possess the powers they are born with as humans, so far as we can do so.
Governments are often created by an ethnic or cultural dominant set of individuals, or by armies, and people who are somehow different don't always get the same respect. I just make it a point that I support the idea of inherent or innate rights of humans regardless of the qualifications of an empowered elite.

It is not radical at all. Your perspective is that of the Founding Fathers and the many Renaissance thinkers who influenced them. It is the position I started from, and it is one I eventually found erroneous.

The work of past philosophers is not necessary for this debate. We're both human beings with functional brains. We are capable of reaching our own conclusions.

 

[babe]

I've got to be going for a while.

Briefly, a person is what he is. I see it that others won't necessarily respect his rights, and groups get it wrong quite often.

The best test of a right is an individual choice. I'd be parroting Nietzsche if I left off with that. If you can do it, you've the right to it. Only it takes one more choice than that. It only becomes a human right if you're willing to permit others to do it too.

You are right in your assessment that it becomes a debate about human recognition of rights, maybe even morals.

But I take it as I find it in the absence of everyone else. Thus, I reduce it to the capacity for choice, thought, plan, or action. Those are human rights.

Society should not interfere with those unnecessarily, and the criteria for necessity arises from the question of equality. The reason this is so follows obviously and undeniably from
The inherently comparable capacities of people to do these things.

Some people might be a little smarter or talented or gifted in these abilities, but it is more a question of education and experience than superiority, and the differences are relatively minor in scale overall, and it is just a good idea to apply the law equally.

therefore, administrators or managers of governance should accept that their powers to apply decisions or make rules or laws should be limited to the minimum of necessary things, and they have a public duty to serve rather than dictate, and to seek public inputs in every way practical.

 

[Harambe]

The equality should be brought by the Judicial branch, not the Executive. And the Executive branch should also be entitled to being judged like the rest of individuals in a society. That's why the way in which the members of the Supreme Court are elected is the key to a healthy political system like the one we live under here in the US. Even more so than who is elected President. But yeah, call me when the Federal Reserve starts being held accountable judicially for the ongoing theft that's been going on ever since it was established. Or when Bush or Obama start being held accountable for their war crimes in the name of 'peace and liberty'.

So when **** hits the fan, you take your interpretation of the law and what's written, and take it for absolute indisputable fact and then exit with the "Call me when..." line.

I'm not excusing what happened, and I even think the CEO's and Board members should be prosecuted. But if those big banks would have fallen as abruptly as they were heading towards we would have had a worse time than we are.

I guess Jamezz here is the JF GD edition of Sam Bowie, Greg Oden, or Darko Milicic.

Rookies. PFFFFT