The Glade 4.0

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/magaz ... =1&_r=1&hp


Wayyyy too long to copy paste.

The article was hellbent on presenting a certain view and spend several pages talking about an individual who wasn't connected with the project.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

What is it with gun culture so frequently going hand and hand with rampant paranoia?



Who is "they", exactly? And what are they wanting to tell you to do? And what is it you don't want to do?

If it's taxes, stfu. Everyone pays them, and your right to own that gun exists in part due to the taxes you pay.

I don't really see much of a light side to this group, either. Their entire goal is to train as many Americans as they can how to kill their fellow citizens "just in case" the time comes to commit treason against their government and country. It's...ugly.

Pssst - no one is actually coming to take your guns away, not even the scaaaaaary black man in the oval office

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

...

Did you just literally suggest that without taxes, we wouldn't have rights?

Because I'm pretty sure the story of our nation begins with a bunch of people who found the opposite to be the case. They paid taxes, and those tax dollars (well, pounds sterling) funded the guy who was trampling, infringing, and oppressing a bunch of rights, like the right to not have your house turned into a barracks...

As for this startling revelation you've had about "gun culture" and rampant paranoia, as often seems the case for you, I believe you've put the cart before the horse. It isn't that "gun culture" breeds or spreads paranoia and militantism; rather that those few among us who are paranoiacs and militants seek out guns because, well, they're paranoid and/or militant.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Poop, I was hoping this was about anime.

_________________

Exactly that. The story of our nation may begin with guys who thought that rights were inherent, but we all know better. Without the government, those rights wouldn't be worth the paper they are written on. The only question would be who had bigger/faster/better guns, and more friends. In an anarchy, there are no rights. No one has the right to free speech, because there is no entity there to protect that right. It extends only so far as you as an individual can kill to protect it. Like it or not, the only thing standing between you and that brand of anarchy is the collective protection of our government.

People who complain about paying taxes in a society like ours are, frankly, just whining. When they hit the stage of learning to kill other human beings in a paranoid attempt to feel more secure from the eeeeeeevil librul jackbooted obamabot thugs, they are not just whining. They are delusional. No one is coming for your guns. This stuff gets worse every single time there's a Democrat in office. It happened during Clinton's term, as well, and there was absolutely no call for it.

You may be right about putting the cart before the horse. However, the marketing of gun culture can have a significant influence on people of varying degrees of mental soundness. Gun sales went through the roof when Obama was elected, despite the fact that he has made absolultely no attempt to strengthen gun control laws and has *certainly* not come for anyone's weapons. Some police officers have been murdered by someone obsessed with Glenn Beck and other right wing talkers and authors that have been screaming out such conspiracy theories since the election. And it's all based on these paranoid notions that the guv'mint is comin' to get ya. They're coming, right over that hill, and if you ain't ready, then they're gonna put ya in a FEMA camp. It says so right there in that pamphlet and in Glenn Beck's show.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Your point holds no water. If the people decide to arrange government to deny specific rights, then there is no difference compared to the system you are supposedly criticizing. Case in point, the right for gay people to marry not exist - such marriages are not recognized by the government (Federal Government). Government can be used to take away rights, as is the case with the rights of gays to marry. If it were anarchy, how is that any different than anyone enforcing this organized militia action? The only difference is the mob rules with votes and popular opinion, not guns. And if you believe so greatly that the rule of vote and popular opinion is what should determine rights, then how can you argue that gays should be able to marry, since popular opinion clearly demonstrates it is not the case.

Alternatively, there is no law saying interracial couples may marry. It's understood that this is a right. Therefore, the right didn't come from government. This right exists without the government decreeing it to be so.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

It's always so enlightening when "progressives" wear their bigotry on on their sleeves; parodying the manner of speech they believe those ignorant gun bearing southerners use. It's refreshing to see how open minded "progressives" are. When that tactic is used by others it's time for the torches and pitchforks, but it's ok for the "progressives" to do it, because they don't target their protected classes.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Monte has a point. Without taxes to pay the people who protect and defend our rights those rights would go only as far as the first person who thought they could get away with violating them - and it would be a short trip if that person knew there was no one around to enforce them, and capture or punish him.

That is the practicality of it. Anarchy would reign for awhile, see Somalia. Government is funded by taxes, no matter what form they may take. No taxes, no government - no government, anarchy.

It is a simple formula.

Me, I like guns because they are such useful, if inefficient, hole punchers. Targets need holes punched in them, it is their destiny. Guns helps the target fulfill its destiny.

I'm fondest of punching holes in the ones with concentric circles, but the ones with silhouettes of people and animals can be fun too.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

But Micheal, government can only defend rights, it cannot create them. Montegue says that our right to bear arms "exist[s]" because of government. And that's patently false. Our government has, as one of its established duties, the obligation to protect our right. But it does not create that right.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Whatever point Monty may have had regarding Government, taxes and anarchy is wiped away by the fact that he stated that without taxes we'd have no rights.
I, and many others, believe rights are inherent. The example of Somalia you use, does that mean that a random Somali doesn't have the right to life? The right to speak freely? The ability to exercise your rights is different from having no rights. It may be cold comfort, true, but the difference exists, and it is important.
The whole tripe about anarchy and "bigger/faster/better guns" overlooks the fact that our Government is the entity with "bigger/faster/better guns". So what's the difference? That train of thought only leads to the concept of paying the Government off as you would an extortioner. It leads to a populace that cannot protect its own rights because they have given them over to the Government. The Government should be an additional safeguard of our rights, taxes or no. It is neither the creator nor caretaker of those rights. Those gifts come from one's creator and the responsibility to care for those rights resides with one's self.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

A+B = correct imho. Societal rights are upheld by governments; however, a society has to recognize an action as a right for the government to be bothered with enforcing it. Alternately a government can abuse the powers we surrender to them to restrict rights that would otherwise be palatable to the society as a whole. The flip side of that coin society can press government into restricting any right if they feel it is in their best interest to do so by refusing to recognize it as a right.

_________________

More rights exist than are protected by the government. However, the constant defense of those rights is very taxing and diverts energy and resources from the individual that might otherwise be better spent.

Ideally, people form governments with the knowledge some of their individual rights will be curtailed such that the larger portion of rights will be ensured to everyone without the need to constantly expend energy defending those rights.

Indeed. Monty was ***** a week or two ago that some prosecutor on a case where he was a juror imitated "black" speech in her closing argument, and talking about how that was offensive.

Of course, mysteriously its not offensive to make fun of Southern whites' speech.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Actually he doesn't. He would, if he were smarter, but he's not. I'd like to explain why, and while I believe you may write off what I have to say I'd like you to read it, because I think that being open to it would potentially create an opening for an alternate viewpoint on this very specific issues of chicken/egg:rights/government.

I'm even going to try to do it without a presumption of inherent rights (though I will of course discuss them).



Besides the fact that this is a bare assertion fallacy with no support, let us assume you're correct in saying that rights are not inherent. You have justified the Holocaust, the oppression of labor by the robber barons, and any other travesty against individual and collective liberty.

Fluid rights is equal to justifiable tyranny, because whatever the law decrees to be just and moral is thereby just and moral. That being said, I'll grant you the assumption for my retort.



This is wholly incorrect given fluid rights, insofar as the government can, theoretically, change rights on a moment's notice, making them "not worth the paper they're printed on."

However, the context here is that you believe inherent rights "wouldn't be worth the paper they are written on" without the government. This is incorrect, insofar as it is not government but the rule of law that protects rights. One would be correct to point out that government generally enforces the rule of law, but I would counter that other bodies are perfectly capable of similar enforcement. Furthermore, the idea that only a powerful central government can enforce the rule of law is fallacious in and of itself, especially given the historical evidence that suggests that central governments are actually more prone to corruption, which itself usurpation of the rule of law.



False, both from a natural rights perspective as well as a fluid rights perspective. From a natural rights perspective, a society absent government or the rule of law still has both collective and individual rights, but only insofar as one can protect them from others. Protecting them from others is key verbiage here, as your statement presupposes that one must establish rights. Under a natural rights viewpoint this is incorrect.

From a fluid rights perspective, one can have innumerable rights provided one can establish and enforce those rights over others. As you claimed, it essentially is how well you can kill others; however, this does not mean none exist. Instead, this means that rights are limited by the individual capacity.

Again, the fluid rights viewpoint would show that anarchal society should be fine with murdering others, and as such implicitly advocates such behavior as a means to protect one's own rights. After all, killing more people is equivalent to more rights for yourself. Alternatively, a natural rights viewpoint does not carry the same implication, because rights cannot be expanded through violence or coercion of others, only protected by violence or coercion of others.




This is again incorrect, as it is the rule of law that protects rights, liberty, and society from anarchy, not government. Historically, governments have created far more deaths and usurpation of liberty than any other body. Instead, given the outcomes of fluid rights discussed above, if a government abides by that philosophy it is actually obligated to commit violence and coercion in order to "expand rights."



In the end, my point is that it is absolutely critical to distinguish between the rule of law and the government. They are not synonymous by any stretch.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

That is because he is a self hating apologist who practices the worst kinds of racism and does not see it.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

False equivalence!

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Actually this isn't entirely true. All the government does in that case is make those things legal. They don't suddenly become justified just because a government allows or commits them. Disregarding people who are rendered by birth defect or injury incompetant, all adults are created equal, in the sense that we all have the same basic faculties and interests in our own life. Clearly, there are individual differences, but they are very minor compared to our similarities.

Any law or systems that justifies itself on the basis that there are not inherent rights runs headlong into this problem; they inevitably create different tiers of legal rights for different groups, even though the people in the groups are all just people. Therefore, any such jsutification is at odds with observeable fact. People understand this just fine which is why such systems have been less and less prevalent; concepts such as "nobility" have gone more and more by the wayside. Ultimately, society decides what is justifiable, and the more of society you put at a disadvantage legally, the weaker your system becomes until one day it collapses and what was justified is all of a sudden not justified anymore. If you get really ridiculous, some other society may come in and say "well, we don't care what you think is moral, we don't, and since we kicked your ***, it's going to be our way."

In other words, you don't need a system of inherent rights to avoid justifying oppression. The oppressed can do it just fine, and they and the associated costs have a tendancy to grow until you can't oppress them anymore.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye, you're not accepting the premise of the context of the quoted portion of DFK!'s post -- namely, that those things are justified if one believes that rights are not inherent, and instead are created (and thus, decided) by the government (or the laws, if you make the distinction that DFK! is). If it's legal to kill Jews, then, barring inherent rights, Jews have no right to life, to use one example that DFK! highlighted.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

No, if it's legal to kill Jews, then it's legal to kill them. If you don't accept the concept of inherent rights then complaining that if Jews have no legal right to life then they have no right to life is tautological. Of course they don't in that circumstance. That doesn't justify it at all.

It does not follow that any time there are not inherent rights that any action sanctioned by the government is then morally justified.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

...

Seriously? You're going to argue that Moral Realism applies to a system wherein government designates the existence of rights? Jesus H. Christ on a pogo-stick.

_________________

No, I didn't say anything about moral realism. Don't break out the philosophical hogwash.

In the sentence I originally responded to, DFK! just said "a system where rights are not inherent"; he said nothing about the government creating them. If the government is creating them is a totally extraneous qualifier to what I was talking about.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You didn't? Apparently, then, you should proofread your posts.

_________________

I did. Don't you worry about my posts.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Wow the founder of that project is a paranoid nutcase.

No, rights are established by government, and that government is then tasked with defending them. Also, the government is regulated from infringing upon them. Without a government, there are no rights. Rights do not exist in a "state of nature". Your rights, in a non-government state of being, only exist in so far as you can individually kill to protect them. The whole purpose behind our form of government is to establish and protect those rights.

Now, the people that founded this country might have believed that rights were an inherent quality of being a person. But that belief doesn't amount to a hill of beans without the establishment of a collective entity to protect and defend those rights.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show