That’s very admirable. Now you just need to organize with others who do the same and on a grander scale. Do the work instead of demanding it if others. Lead by example instead of force and coercion. Lead by reason instead of sociopathy.

I can give you the right to borrow my lawnmower whenever you require it. Rights are bestowed by men, and not all men are legislators.

One is an idiot, if someone thinks the below argument will float:

Perino’s Fox News colleague Tucker Carlson brought the issue of wokeness in the military to the forefront when he mocked President Joe Biden for prioritizing things like maternity flight suits and hairstyle regulations for female service members while China was focusing on developing masculinity, building new islands and developing hypersonic missile technology. — ssu

Then maybe I'm an idiot. It sounds like exactly the kind of thing that will float to me, quite frankly.

Lead by reason instead of sociopathy. — NOS4A2

Sweet Jesus, wanting to tax people to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves is sociopathy?

I can give you the right to borrow my lawnmower whenever you require it. Rights are bestowed by men, and not all men are legislators. — NOS4A2

Yes, but we need an arrangement that will guarantee that the rights bestowed by citizens to other citizens and the private arrangements that they make are protected and honored, do we not? Don't we need some sort of basic legislation to do this?

Sweet Jesus, wanting to tax people to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves is sociopathy?

Nah, it was just a joke. But it is immoral and unjust.

Yes, but we need an arrangement that will guarantee that the rights bestowed by citizens to other citizens and the private arrangements that they make are protected and honored, do we not? Don't we need some sort of basic legislation to do this?

In my opinion yes. The so-called Night-Watchmen state suits me just fine. Beyond that it should not go.

Then maybe I'm an idiot. It sounds like exactly the kind of thing that will float to me, quite frankly. — ToothyMaw

So you really would think that the Biden administration would think that maternity flight suits are more important than the threat of Chinese hypersonic missiles are designed to destroy US aircraft carriers?

Either rights are a commonly understood recognition of the sovereignty of individual boundaries, or, simply put, anything goes. In a world of no rights, one has no business ever arguing for or against any action undertake by a human, as they have no right to do so. — Garrett Travers

I think it quite possible to determine what we, and others, should or should not do without recourse to the concept of "rights." And I think one is able to do so without needing to assume the existence of some right-giving, non-human authority, which I consider a benefit. To assure that things are or are not done, however, is another thing. I can claim the right to do whatever I please, and likewise can claim that others may not do things in violation of my rights. That is what may create a situation where it's impossible to maintain that actions taken may not be taken.

Absent a common understanding, you would say. But what, and where, is that common understanding? Do you think what you conceive to be your rights are recognized by all, and would not be violated by them absent any penalty which you believe is appropriate (and which you may not be able to impose)?

The concept of rights is a useful one for purposes of limiting the power of governments and regulating conduct. But governmental power may be limited without the assertion of a right, by a prohibition for example.

I can give you the right to borrow my lawnmower whenever you require it. — NOS4A2

I don't think you give me a right, though. You allow me to use it; my use is contingent on your consent. I have no right I can exercise regardless of what you want.

I think it quite possible to determine what we, and others, should or should not do without recourse to the concept of "rights." And I think one is able to do so without needing to assume the existence of some right-giving, non-human authority, which I consider a benefit. — Ciceronianus

I actually promote this idea. I however, simply do not jettison the concept of rights, as it has a place on the ethical table, it's part of the of equation. It is the application of that very framework that has led to the flourishing of countless live and a framework that, if dispensed, will lead to pandemonium, even if you and I both know it isn't necessary to reach moral conclusions. You have to remember, most people don't think about the stuff we do here, the mundane folk need these kinds of frameworks to work with.

I can claim the right to do whatever I please, and likewise can claim that others may not do things in violation of my rights. That is what may create a situation where it's impossible to maintain that actions taken may not be taken. — Ciceronianus

I agree, I think. Your right to do as you please invloves the conceptual understanding that you have sovereign boundaries that others do not have the right to violate, because if they do, then the concept of rights self-destructs and you have Cole Porter style anything goes.

Absent a common understanding, you would say. But what, and where, is that common understanding? Do you think what you conceive to be your rights are recognized by all, and would not be violated by them absent any penalty which you believe is appropriate (and which you may not be able to impose)? — Ciceronianus

No, I don't. Nor do I seek to solve this dilemma. That isn't the place for ethical philosophy. Ethical philosophy can only present the case, it can't get people to accept the case. But, I am equipped with epitemological knowledge to combat any argument that rights are useless, or that can be asserted that would skew the framework to include violations of individual sovereignty, which covers the concept of rights in its entirety.

The concept of rights is a useful one for purposes of limiting the power of governments and regulating conduct. But governmental power may be limited without the assertion of a right, by a prohibition for example. — Ciceronianus

Couldn't agree more. I would simply caution throwing out that framework prematurely, dig?

I would simply caution throwing out that framework prematurely, dig? — Garrett Travers

Ever read Tom Wolfe's article Radical Chic: That Party at Lenny's? It's about a party Leonard Bernstein held for the Black Panthers in 1970. Bernstein would respond "I dig absolutely" to statements made by the Panthers. I'm showing my age by referring to it, and no doubt by thinking of it in response to your question.

Not that you're a Black Panther. In any case, I do dig. Absolutely.

Ever read Tom Wolfe's article Radical Chic: That Party at Lenny's? It's about a party Leonard Bernstein held for the Black Panthers in 1970. Bernstein would respond "I dig absolutely" to statements made by the Panthers. I'm showing my age by referring to it, and no doubt by thinking of it in response to your question.

Not that you're a Black Panther. In any case, I do dig. Absolutely. — Ciceronianus

No worries, my friend. I'm picking up what you're putting down. However, I actually haven't read it. But, I will.

-G

It surely is a right. My behavior is such that I allow you to use it, yes, just as my behavior is to allow you to speak when I give you the right to speak freely.

This is objectively false and I have provided you a small article on it. — Garrett Travers

Private property is a gift from the state. I don’t care how many private security guards one has. For the millions who can’t afford bodyguards and private security, this is irrelevant. It’s also irrelevant to the law and to rights. Private property rights don’t come from the tooth fairy— they come from the state. No matter how many security guards you can afford. (Legal rights. Whatever else we mean, whether God-given or whatever, I’m not interested in.)

Private property is not a gift from the state, it is a demand from the people — Garrett Travers

It’s a right. But the right to healthcare and something to eat? Guess it’s not “demanded” enough.

It wasn’t demanded by the people. It was enshrined in law — in the US’s case, in the constitution. By landholding slaveowners.

You have the right to eat and live, you do not have the right to my labor to ensure that you do. And no, taxation is never required for any of this. — Garrett Travers

Property rights are enforced by the state, which is funded by taxes. Providing for the poor can be done by the state, funded by taxes. When you say “my labor,” if not your taxes I don’t know what you’re fantasizing about. Go clutch your gun if you need to— but no one is coming for “your labor.” No one cares. What I’m talking about is TAXES and how government spends those taxes. If they can spend trillions on defending your private property, they can spend some on starving children.

The government purports to fund this, while also sending billions to foreign countries and funding, again, murderous wars all over the world for decades. — Garrett Travers

Purports to, and fails to.

And no, my property rights don't vanish because the state stops stealing my money. Come to my home and attempt to steal my property, I'll show you how property rights are ensured. — Garrett Travers

Oh how impressive. How heroic.

Sounds like every other wannabe tough guy who clutches their guns like little squirrels clutch their nuts. Conservative paranoia.

Your property “rights” do indeed vanish without government. Call it whatever you want at that point, but it’s not legal. At that point anything goes. Defend it if you can. Based on what you say, my guess is you’d last about five minutes.

What’s slavery is being essentially forced to work for wages. It’s called wage slavery. I have a little say in government — I have zero say when it comes to the profits I generate for the owners I work for. Sociopaths usually have little to say about this dynamic, oddly. I guess it’s really “freedom.” Government is also the real problem, in this fantasy.
— Xtrix

You aren't forced by any other entity than the state which encloses the entirey of this section of the continent, thereby guaranteeing people of your philosophical leanings cannot erect commons on which you can escape the Free Market and private property. It is not employers forcing you into the market, it is the state. — Garrett Travers

The state is currently an instrument for the employers. They own the state because the people who run the state are beholden to them. Lobbyists write laws, not the people.

True, we can blame everything on governments— but for anyone not caught in the fantasy, this is a convenient cover for the ruling class. “Government is the problem.” And people like you parrot it forever. The one guiding principle. Predictable and, for those willing to give the matter more than 5 minutes attention, completely wrong.

But you demonstrate nicely how effective that propaganda is.

Again, private property is not by and large protected by the state, it is predominantly, and it isn't close, protected by individual property owners. — Garrett Travers

Most property doesn’t need “defending.” No one cares— your paranoia aside.

Property is a right granted and enforced by states. The fact that some people (mostly businesses) hire security guards (many of whom are ex cops) on their own is completely irrelevant. Besides, our military, which protects the entire country (and all property within it), is not a private entity— in fact, we all spent 700 billion dollars on it this year alone.

But I’m glad you’re able to play make believe with your guns. Keep protecting that private property from those ‘injuns and robbers.

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology — Garrett Travers

Predictable. :lol: Called that one.

Ayn Rand’s political philosophy is a joke. Logically coherent, no doubt — but a complete fantasy. And one used to do untold harm.

And yes, I’ve unfortunately read a number of her works, fiction and otherwise.

who thinks everything can be reduced to “trade.”
— Xtrix

Only a sociopath would use objectively true statements as a means to describe someone as a sociopath — Garrett Travers

:rofl:

It’s objectively true that everything can be reduced to trade. Imagine that.

Goes to show objectivism isn’t a philosophy, it’s a sickness.

Now you just need to organize with others who do the same and on a grander scale. — NOS4A2

And push government to do more, which is its proper function.

I recommend you organize with others and build your own roads, in the meantime.



:100:

I actually promote this idea. — Garrett Travers

You’re not promoting anything except plagiarizing Ayn Rand books.

There are no “rights.” People functioned just fine for thousands of years without this concept. It’s a useful construct, but nothing more.

Right, only man in his government form can flatten ground and lay asphalt.

Sure, set a bunch of bureaucrats to do the jobs you refuse to. That’ll work.

Private property is a gift from the state. I don’t care how many private security guards one has. For the millions who can’t afford bodyguards and private security, this is irrelevant. It’s also irrelevant to the law and to rights. Private property rights don’t come from the tooth fairy— they come from the state. No matter how many security guards you can afford. — Xtrix

Those people objectively accrue and protect their own property. Your incessant appeals to law make no difference to the processes which do not require any laws associated with them. You've been overhauled on this point with multiple points of data, you're simply not correct.

It’s a right. But the right to healthcare and something to eat? Guess it’s not “demanded” enough.

It wasn’t demanded by the people. It was enshrined in law — in the US’s case, in the constitution. By landholding slaveowners. — Xtrix

Healthcare and something to eat are property, they must be traded for because you do not have the right to the labor of others to provide property for you. This has been explained to you now three times.

Property rights are enforced by the state, which is funded by taxes. Providing for the poor can be done by the state, funded by taxes. When you say “my labor,” if not your taxes I don’t know what you’re fantasizing about. Go clutch your gun if you need to— but no one is coming for “your labor.” No one cares. What I’m talking about is TAXES and how government spends those taxes. If they can spend trillions on defending your private property, they can spend some on starving children. — Xtrix

Property rights are enforced predominatly by private owners, I have already shown you that. You're a Marxist parrot with nothing to add to this conversation. Taxes is theft of labor, of which the government steals from both you and I, unless you're a welfare leech, at least 25% of what we earn. They spend more money on laws that place nonviolent offenders in prison for multiple decades. The idea that you can defend this murderous entity and still claim you care about children being fed is narcissism beyond that of which words can contain.

Property is a right granted and enforced by states. The fact that some people (mostly businesses) hire security guards (many of whom are ex cops) on their own is completely irrelevant. Besides, our military, which protects the entire country (and all property within it), is not a private entity— in fact, we all spent 700 billion dollars on it this year alone. — Xtrix

I don't care if it's enshrined in law, it is protected exponentially more often by private owners. Period. Move on.

Predictable. :lol: Called that one.
Ayn Rand’s political philosophy is a joke. Logically coherent, no doubt — but a complete fantasy. And one used to do untold harm. And yes, I’ve unfortunately read a number of her works, fiction and otherwise. — Xtrix

Is this suppose to be an argument, or are just you venting your frustration that a 90 pound Russian lady single-handly destroyed your political framework

like it was afternoon tea-time?

It’s objectively true that everything can be reduced to trade. Imagine that. — Xtrix

Well, no. Take you for instance, you have nothing to offer anyone, no value to trade, you can't even be trusted to contribute actual arguments in a debate. The idea of trade doesn't apply to people like you.

:cool:

You’re not promoting anything except plagiarizing Ayn Rand books. — Xtrix

You're projecting. You've done nothing short of angrily parrot assertions that were easily refutable that you probably picked up from Richard Wolff or some other dumbass just like him. Come back to the thread when you have arguments that can withstand scutiny.

It surely is a right. My behavior is such that I allow you to use it, yes, just as my behavior is to allow you to speak when I give you the right to speak freely. — NOS4A2

I don't think I understand you. Are you saying I don't have the right to speak freely unless you give it to me?

There are no “rights.” People functioned just fine for thousands of years without this concept. It’s a useful construct, but nothing more. — Xtrix

If there are no rights, then you have no business telling us what your opinion is on ethical topic, you've no right to share. Where as there are no rights, nothing should bother you about anyone's given circumstances, they have no righ to ask, or to seek, or to demand anything other than what the world has offered him. If he has no rights, as you vociferate in your usual sociopathic manner, he shouldn't be upset when men like you clobber him over the head for what goods you can have him for, he's no right to expect otherwise.

I don't think I understand you. Are you saying I don't have the right to speak freely unless you give it to me?

That’s right. If no people give and recognize your right to speak, then you have no right to speak freely. It sounds easy to understand to me.

Go back to sleep NOS. Or go read more Ayn Rand.

Those people objectively accrue and protect their own property. — Garrett Travers

I’m sorry you don’t understand what property rights are, nor apparently what the law is.

Healthcare and something to eat are property, they must be traded for because you do not have the right to the labor of others to provide property for you. — Garrett Travers

Yes, maybe if you repeat Ayn Rand another few times it’ll become true.

You do not have the right to the labor of others to provide you with property rights either. Nor the military to protect you. So like I said, go live in a cave if you don’t want to be part of the civilized world.

Imagine believing that feeding children and providing healthcare for people should be a “trade.”

Objectivism really is a sickness.

Property rights are enforced predominatly by private owners, I have already shown you that. — Garrett Travers

They are not. You’ve shown nothing of the kind — you’ve given a blog about the number of private security. So for the fifth time: that’s not the point.

Property “rights” are legal rights. They may also very well be from God or nature or objective reality or whatever bullshit you want to claim they are. That’s irrelevant. Without a legal claim to land, it’s not your land. Cicero explained this to you. But keep trying — you’ll get it eventually.

Taxes is theft of labor, of which the government steals from both you and I, — Garrett Travers

Yes— anti-politics is the one principle you subscribe to. We get it. The government is the problem. Yawn.

Property is a right granted and enforced by states. The fact that some people (mostly businesses) hire security guards (many of whom are ex cops) on their own is completely irrelevant. Besides, our military, which protects the entire country (and all property within it), is not a private entity— in fact, we all spent 700 billion dollars on it this year alone.
— Xtrix

I don't care if it's enshrined in law, it is protected exponentially more often by private owners. — Garrett Travers

Which is, again, irrelevant. “I don’t care if property rights are enshrined in law.” Excellent argument.

I “protect” my grill and shoes more often than the state. Ditto my street. Cops and FBI rarely come around. What does this have to do with property rights? Ah yes: nothing.

90 pound Russian lady single-handly destroyed your political framework — Garrett Travers

:lol:

Gotta love the objectivist cult. Nothing if not predictable.

Come back to the thread when you have arguments that can withstand scutiny. — Garrett Travers

:yawn:

Yes, sorry I can’t live up to the standard of “I don’t care.”

If there are no rights, then you have no business telling us what your opinion is on ethical topic, you've no right to share. — Garrett Travers

Yet here I am sharing it.

So much for that theory.

usual sociopathic manner — Garrett Travers

Well done, Donald Trump. Take a claim that accurately describes your philosophy, then regurgitate it and hope it catches on. So very clever.

You’re a follower of a sociopathic cult. You fool no one.

“Rights.” Turns out they’re magic. Who knew!

Wonder how the tribes of Papua New Guinea function without this idea. Or literally everyone prior to the 17th century.

I’m sorry you don’t understand what property rights are, nor apparently what the law is. — Xtrix

I do, the concept doesn't require the law to enforce it.

Yes, maybe if you repeat Ayn Rand another few times it’ll become true. — Xtrix

That's not an argument. Possessions and services paid for are property. Anything that belongs to someone is property: a thing or things belonging to someone. That's the definition.

You do not have the right to the labor of others to provide you with property rights either. Nor the military to protect you. So like I said, go live in a cave if you don’t want to be part of the civilized world. — Xtrix

The state isn't required for property rights to be enforced, as the report and the article I gave you demonstrate, and the state makes me pay for military by violating my right to my own labor. Not sure what you think you're arguing.

Imagine believing that feeding children and providing healthcare for people should be a “trade.” — Xtrix

Literally no one ever said that. Except you, who has now said it at least twice without having been prompted to. Feeding children and providing healthcare is not any duty of mine, simple as that. Nobody is stopping you from feeding all the children, Nancy.

Which is, again, irrelevant. “I don’t care if property rights are enshrined in law.” Excellent argument.

I “protect” my grill and shoes more often than the state. Ditto my street. Cops and FBI rarely come around. What does this have to do with property rights? Ah yes: nothing. — Xtrix

It has everything to do with property rights, cupcake. You keep saying the state protects property. So, doesn't matter. What matters is, property does not require the state's protection and isn't protected by law enforecement more than property owners as it currently stands. And yes, I've given you an article and a govenment report on the subject. You can keep ignoring them, but don't expect anyone here to take you seriously.

Gotta love the objectivist cult. Nothing if not predictable. — Xtrix

She literally lives in your head.

Yet here I am sharing it.

So much for that theory. — Xtrix

You're certainly sharing a wonderful display of neuroticism and self-contradiction. You are here sharing, sweetheart, because you have the right. You see, we actually live somewhere, and operate within domains that recognize individual rights. When you occupy space in an area populated by people who don't, and you being someone who says they don't regard rights as " a thing," you will have no business being upset with what anyone does to you, as you have no rights otherwise. And If you don't regard rights as a thing, then why do you keep bringing up children being fed and people having healthcare as if such things were a right? I'll wager to say that you believe in rights only when it's useful to your idea of whatever it is you've drummed up in your hateful little head.

Well done, Donald Trump. Take a claim that accurately describes your philosophy, then regurgitate it and hope it catches on. So very clever.

You’re a follower of a sociopathic cult. You fool no one. — Xtrix

Oh, I see what's going on, you're a crazed liberal with Rand and Trump constantly on your mind. This is a really embarrassing display on your part. You could have just come here and had a discussion.

Go back to sleep NOS. Or go read more Ayn Rand.

Take some drugs and think about it, Mike.

but we have to fight the fascists and neo-liberals — ToothyMaw

Yep and after that...go back to killing and torturing each other in the most horrific of ways!

I hate to break this to you but did you know enough American-on-American or any x on x violence exists to make any form of social group (BLM, LGBQT, or Women's lib) nothing more than a bad joke!

I do, the concept doesn't require the law to enforce it. — Garrett Travers

It does. Without military, you have no state. Without state, you have no property rights to protect and “enforce” through your security guards.

Feeding children and providing healthcare is not any duty of mine, simple as that. — Garrett Travers

Yes— how very Ayn Rand of you. That devil altruism, the real destroyer of worlds.

I’ll go with sharper thinkers, who actually understood the importance of the commons. Like Aristotle. You stick with Rand.

You keep saying the state protects property. So, doesn't matter. What matters is, property does not require the state's protection and isn't protected by law enforecement more than property owners as it currently stands. — Garrett Travers

Totally irrelevant, but also happens to be untrue. Why? Because for the fourth time: states grant the legal right of private property — a state is protected by the military. Regardless of whether BlackRock hires private security guards.

don't expect anyone here to take you seriously. — Garrett Travers

Yes, because *I’m* the one not taken seriously. :lol:

Well done, Mr Trump. “No, YOU’RE the puppet.”

You are here sharing, sweetheart, because you have the right. — Garrett Travers

Oh okay. So anything we do, we do because we have the right to. Got it. So if I slept with you wife, I did so because I have the right to. No wait, I don’t have the right to do that. So if I don’t, it’s because I have the right not to. If I speak, it’s because it’s my right. Don’t speak, because it’s my right to remain silent.

Laugh at your ridiculous Nickelodeon views on rights? Also my right. Which I am now exercising.

you will have no business being upset with what anyone does to you, as you have no rights otherwise. — Garrett Travers

Nah, I’ll say and feel what I want. Whether I’ve heard of “rights” or not. Wikipedia the history of rights — fairly interesting. Not as simple as whatever some Russian lady says they are, but still worthwhile.

Take some drugs and think about it, Mike. — NOS4A2

:kiss:

It does. Without military, you have no state. Without state, you have no property rights to protect and “enforce” through your security guards. — Xtrix

Secirty guards aren't law, and neither is the protection that I offer my property, which has been sufficient for 30 years.

Yes— how very Ayn Rand of you. That devil altruism, the real destroyer of worlds.

I’ll go with sharper thinkers, who actually understood the importance of the commons. Like Aristotle. You stick with Rand. — Xtrix

None of the above statement changes the fact that I am not responsible for the children other people created and abused, or their healthcare. I'll leave that up to people like you to put your money where your mouth is. Which won't happen.

Totally irrelevant, but also happens to be untrue. Why? Because for the fourth time: states grant the legal right of private property — a state is protected by the military. Regardless of whether BlackRock hires private security guards. — Xtrix

That's never been in dispute, dumplin-tits. What's been in dispute is the necessity of the state to do so.

Yes, because *I’m* the one not taken seriously. :lol:

Well done, Mr Trump. “No, YOU’RE the puppet.” — Xtrix

That is correct, you lack the requisite intelligence to be taken seriously. You've served only the purpose of my amusement thus far.

Oh okay. So anything we do, we do because we have the right to. Got it. So if I slept with you wife, I did so because I have the right to. No wait, I don’t have the right to do that. So if I don’t, it’s because I have the right not to. If I speak, it’s because it’s my right. Don’t speak, because it’s my right to remain silent. — Xtrix

This above statement is the most brilliant thing you've said in this entire discussion. Yes, when you negate the concept of rights, this statement listed above, in all its in coherence, is the natural conclusion: a jumbled mix of self-contradictory nonsense. I'm glad you're catching on.

Nah, I’ll say and feel what I want. Whether I’ve heard of “rights” or not. Wikipedia the history of rights — fairly interesting. Not as simple as whatever some Russian lady says they are, but still worthwhile. — Xtrix

Rights do not require that you hear of them, nor understand anything of their history, but only that your sovereignty as an individual is recognized. Which you are doing for me, and I am doing for you. Even if I have to lead you by the nose to get you anywhere.

:nerd: