Is it time for revolution?

#477
#477
PKT_VOL said:
Seems every bit as magical to me as you believe natural rights rooted in divinity is magic for others.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can get societal constructs without the right to self-preservation and choice. That said, these rights don't necessarily include correlative duties on anyone else. Basically, it can't be wrong to do everything in one's power to preserve one's life, yet that doesn't entail anyone else must not take a life.
 
#478
#478
therealUT said:
I don't think you can get societal constructs without the right to self-preservation and choice.
Click to expand...

Is/ought. I have no problem with those ought's or where they originate. It is getting to the "is" without society that is magical.

therealUT said:
That said, these rights don't necessarily include correlative duties on anyone else. Basically, it can't be wrong to do everything in one's power to preserve one's life, yet that doesn't entail anyone else must not take a life.
Click to expand...

Then self-preservation is pretty much meaningless.
 
#479
#479
PKT_VOL said:
Is/ought. I have no problem with those ought's or where they originate. It is getting to the "is" without society that is magical.



Then self-preservation is pretty much meaningless.
Click to expand...

I don't see asserting that, "if mortality exists, surely one is justified in doing whatever is necessary to preserve their life", is meaningless. Further, it serves a major function in all social contact theories, thus, again, not meaningless.

The "is" requires no magic, as we can locate the universal drive to preserve one's life in elementary biology. What might be magical are other-regarding duties that are not originated in society.
 
#480
#480
BigOrangeTrain said:
I am assuming you're serious. Well just a few things about your assumption. So the first 150 years? That would put the 150th year at 1926. The US population at that point was around 117 million. Now its like 320 million. Big difference. Some of the worst drugs didn't even exist back then.

So how would these drugs be sold? Legit businesses? If so, you're saying shops can be set up to sell meth, krokodil, bath salts, cocaine, heroin, crack, hash, LSD, Scolpolamine and others. That seems really smart.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I think most would be sold at drug stores, OTC of course. But yes. They should be sold at different shops. It's my body. The things I put in it are my decision. Meth and cocaine have both been sold over the counter previously along with herion and other opiates. Most of them were sold as cure alls.

And why do you say "legit" businesses. Do you not consider alcohol or tobacco companies to be legit?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#481
#481
Vol8188 said:
Absolutely. I think most would be sold at drug stores, OTC of course. But yes. They should be sold at different shops. It's my body. The things I put in it are my decision. Meth and cocaine have both been sold over the counter previously along with herion and other opiates. Most of them were sold as cure alls.

And why do you say "legit" businesses. Do you not consider alcohol or tobacco companies to be legit?
Click to expand...

Why do you think these drugs were made illegal?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#482
#482
therealUT said:
I don't see asserting that, "if mortality exists, surely one is justified in doing whatever is necessary to preserve their life", is meaningless. Further, it serves a major function in all social contact theories, thus, again, not meaningless..
Click to expand...

Morality and legality (rights) are different.

The part I was really referring to was the "doesn't entail anyone else must not take a life". The right of self-preservation is pretty meaningless if others are not compelled to not take your life.

therealUT said:
The "is" requires no magic, as we can locate the universal drive to preserve one's life in elementary biology. What might be magical are other-regarding duties that are not originated in society.
Click to expand...

Evolutionary biology/genetics are not rights. Like I stated before, I have no problem with the ought or where that originates (from the individual consciousness). The problem is the "is" of the right; not the ought of the right or what facts of biology/genetics support the ought.
 
#484
#484
PKT_VOL said:
Morality and legality (rights) are different.

The part I was really referring to was the "doesn't entail anyone else must not take a life". The right of self-preservation is pretty meaningless if others are not compelled to not take your life.



Evolutionary biology/genetics are not rights. Like I stated before, I have no problem with the ought or where that originates (from the individual consciousness). The problem is the "is" of the right; not the ought of the right or what facts of biology/genetics support the ought.
Click to expand...

You're taking rights to be thicker than they are. Natural rights may be nothing more than natural liberties, that is what we can by nature do.
 
#493
#493
PKT_VOL said:
I don't get the relevance.
Click to expand...

Not all rights language entails duties on others. These two natural rights, as liberties, are relevant and spoken of by philosophers because one cannot give these liberties up and remain a person. One who gives up their liberty to live is dead; one who gives up their liberty to choose is brain dead.
 
#494
#494
therealUT said:
Not all rights language entails duties on others. These two natural rights, as liberties, are relevant and spoken of by philosophers because one cannot give these liberties up and remain a person. One who gives up their liberty to live is dead; one who gives up their liberty to choose is brain dead.
Click to expand...

In such a context, I would consider neither "rights". Just personal ought's.
 
#495
#495
PKT_VOL said:
In such a context, I would consider neither "rights". Just personal ought's.
Click to expand...

I'd say the ought is much stronger, and thus less supportable, than the weak liberty-right.

Basically, the liberty-right is merely saying that as a person there is no way in which you can give up your life and remain a person. From there, it then makes the minor move of asserting that one cannot be acting wrongly if they are doing what is necessary to preserve their life. Even this is weak, though not meaningless, as it doesn't necessarily entail that one is acting wrongly if they do give up their life.

There is nothing magical about this notion. You find the use of "right" here to be odd, but this is exactly how it was used by Pufendorf, Grotius, and Hobbes, who are the earliest natural rights theorists.
 
#497
#497
Vol8188 said:
Racist propaganda
Click to expand...

If you're serious about legalization, you should start by just promoting marijuana. People use you as example of " legalize one thing and they'll want all the drugs legalized ", I know that's precisely what you want, but that's way too radical for 95% of the population right now.
 
#498
#498
therealUT said:
If your property is going to be taxed, the rational being is going to use it to offset such taxes. Basically, the rational individual will buy no more land than she absolutely needs, else she will buy land that she can cultivate in some manner.

As we currently stand, many wealthy individuals purchase large tracts of land which lie dormant. The land, for them, is an investment, and they do little to nothing with such land, few even rent such sites out, and they rarely visit the land themselves.

This is a waste of a truly finite resource, a resource that can often be cultivated wherever it is found. By highly taxing property, the landowner is forced to make such property useful to all, either by merely paying the taxes or by paying the taxes and increasing productivity.

It's amazing that for all the glory many self-declared "fiscal conservatives" heap upon Adam Smith, they largely ignore most of what he wrote in Wealth of Nations (as he is also a welfare capitalist).
Click to expand...

Then only landowners should be allowed to vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#500
#500
OrangeWayOfLife said:
If you're serious about legalization, you should start by just promoting marijuana. People use you as example of " legalize one thing and they'll want all the drugs legalized ", I know that's precisely what you want, but that's way too radical for 95% of the population right now.
Click to expand...

I could agree with that.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top