A fundamental problem in this thinking is to assume that the government just gives out services, which are paid in taxes. Services that we "the people" could buy from private entities. Behind those two wide oceans Americans can think that this is what governments and nations exist for.

Yet being a citizen and being a consumer aren't synonyms.

Fascism is specifically about nationalism and an aggressive military. The ills of corporate rule are not correctly called "fascism ". It's just the dark side of liberalism. — frank

Fascism is a pretty general term these days, but it's exact meaning isn't the point.

As long as pessimism isn’t a preventative for action, I’ve no problem with it. — Mikie

Indeed. Rest assured I'm pissing more people off in the real word than suffer from my "militancy" here.

Fascism is a pretty general term these days, but it's exact meaning isn't the point. — Isaac

It shouldn't be. It had a specific meaning that we do well to keep in mind because it was associated with a disaster we don't want to repeat. Using it as an all purpose insult is a dishonor to all the victims of real fascism.

I think that is a good point. What’s missing from both is the morality. It would be nice if we didn’t need both, either state-enforced cooperation or private interest, to tackle social ills such as poverty and redistribution.

All I know is morality cannot be developed through immoral means such as coercion and involuntary association. We’ve tried all that and the results are nothing to be proud of. Freedom has always been the only condition under which any kind of moral fiber can be developed. Unfortunately I fear those conditions will never be realized.

Rest assured I'm pissing more people off in the real word than suffer from my "militancy" here. — Isaac

Nice! :clap:

I think that is a good point. What’s missing from both is the morality. It would be nice if we didn’t need both, either state-enforced cooperation or private interest, to tackle social ills such as poverty and redistribution. — NOS4A2

You can argue that both are forced upon the individual, but I think a lot of it isn't forced upon us.

Citizenship of a country and the idea of nation-state does create social cohesion were there wouldn't otherwise be much if any. It can unite the rich and the poor and with it we overcome our ethnic and racial differences. It's not something that was invented in the 19th Century, the idea of being "Roman" being something else than just having been born in one city is the obvious historical example of this. In fact, before the 19th Century when various people in the Balkans got their independence, a lot of them had still referred themselves as being Romans, even if having lived under the Ottoman Empire and East-Rome having died a long time ago. The idea of a nation, and citizens making the nation, is quite a successful one. Yes, some young people are surprised when they understand the fact that it's all a made up thing, but often they then don't understand just how important as a "made up thing" this is. A lot of things similarly "made up" by people are essential. The World of "post"-everything hasn't arrived yet and actually will never arrive.

Collectivism of the national sort does compel one to conform, and conformity does work well towards “social cohesion”. Many embrace it as it can give one a sense of belonging in an otherwise alienating world.

But wherever a group is represented in people’s minds through its more salient features, whether it be shared government, religion, race, and so on, those features will invariably be used against that group in a fashion that blinds one to the unique and original characteristics of any individual person.

One need not adopt another collective myth to find affinity with other others, especially one that is exclusive to a vast majority of human beings. Nationalism is often used as an excuse to persecute outsiders, to engage in war, and to increase state prestige and power at the expense of individual human rights, and no amount of social conformity is worth it.

Translation: Collectivism bad; Fascism good. :up:

We use our reason, speech, and bodies to derive, confer, and protect rights, like any right that has ever been uttered. — NOS4A2

hmmm... I think we need to go a step deeper. What is your definition of a "right"? Describe a basic situation in a theoretical base state (so no social institutions yet) where "rights" are derived, conferred. Who does the protecting and why?

We observe human nature in order to find what is universal about human beings. For instance, humans need to speak, to communicate, to be creative. So we grant them the freedom to speak, refuse to intervene when they are doing so, and defend that right if necessary.

This contradicts with the following:

But wherever a group is represented in people’s minds through its more salient features, whether it be shared government, religion, race, and so on, those features will invariably be used against that group in a fashion that blinds one to the unique and original characteristics of any individual person. — NOS4A2

There's nothing universal about people. In my view trying that approach is begging for committing a naturalistic fallcy anyway. There's always some psychopath out there who doesn't think the right to life exists. Or has quaint ideas of when it's ok to dispense with the right to protect what they think is a higher norm.

Rights are a kind of normative principle. We entitle people to act within a sphere of acceptable activity. These entitlements are afforded to others in order to let them know we will not intervene in these activities, and defend them if necessary.

I observe that humans tend to speak. I conclude that it is in their nature to speak, that speaking is required to live. So I confer the right to speak. Since I confer the right I do not intervene when they speak and defend them as they do. No institution required.

—

The quoted statements do not contradict each other because one is concerned with human nature and the other with sub-group characteristics and dynamics. One can observe what is universal about human beings while at the same time remembering what is unique and original about each of them.

—

The biology is universal. From it comes a variety of needs and tendencies. We need to eat, drink, and breathe, for example. We tend to move. We tend to speak. We tend to find shelter. We tend to associate with others. What is wrong with founding a set of principles upon these most basic needs and tendencies?

Rights are a kind of normative principle. We entitle people to act within a sphere of acceptable activity. These entitlements are afforded to others in order to let them know we will not intervene in these activities, and defend them if necessary. — NOS4A2

I still don't know what you think a right is based on this. I'd think it's not such a complicated question for you to dance around the answer like this. I'm assuming you're not thinking of legal rights at this point yet. For instance, I could define a moral right as an entitlement to have, receive or do something that has an underlying justification. Anything to add, remove or change in your view? (And yes, I do intend to go into what the underlying justification would be at some point).

I observe that humans tend to speak. I conclude that it is in their nature to speak, that speaking is required to live. So I confer the right to speak. Since I confer the right I do not intervene when they speak and defend them as they do. No institution required. — NOS4A2

Even without law, custom and social norms constrain what is acceptable to say. For instance, I don't think people should lie or be mean to others - eg. I believe there are also moral obligations towards others, which means there's no right to lie or be mean. As a result, your example doesn't make sense to me for such reasons; it's simply not absolute nor can it be reduced to platitudes. But let's move on. What happens when you confer a right? What changes in the world because you do that? In other words, why should anybody care what you have to say about what rights exist, you conferring a right and being prepared to defend it? How do you imagine moving from these opinions to law?

The quoted statements do not contradict each other because one is concerned with human nature and the other with sub-group characteristics and dynamics. One can observe what is universal about human beings while at the same time remembering what is unique and original about each of them. — NOS4A2

They are contradictory in practice because you mistakenly assume people are going to agree on what is universal. Religious people will insist on other universal characteristics, real or perceived, than atheists, for instance. So the attempts at classification of human nature automatically leads to sub-groups and therefore glosses over what makes people unique and original.

The biology is universal. From it comes a variety of needs and tendencies. We need to eat, drink, and breathe, for example. We tend to move. We tend to speak. We tend to find shelter. We tend to associate with others. What is wrong with founding a set of principles upon these most basic needs and tendencies? — NOS4A2

I think you're once again flirting with an appeal to nature fallacy and an is-ought gap to boot. Violence/aggression is also universally present. Everybody has a right to be violent? I'd hope not. Not everything found in nature, even if universally present, equates to moral behaviour. Anyway, from your list, everybody has a right to eat, drink and breathe. So if you have enough food for two, another starving person has a right to half of it?

I’ll try to make it more clear. As I said, rights are a kind of normative principle. A principle is a basic idea or rule. A normative principle is a basic idea or rule that informs conduct and behavior. This would include legal rights.

—

Your moral obligations do not make sense to me because they are unjust and born of feelings. They do not consider whether someone is deserving of being lied to, or whether the situation demands that someone lies. Sometimes lying and insult are key to various art forms, like satire, irony, and fiction. It is because of justice, not feelings, that the freedom to speak includes the right to lie and be mean.

Nothing happens once you confer a right. A right is declared, and that’s about it, I’m afraid. Nothing is exchanged. No one has to care. The one who declares the right must reify it, must promote and defend it, or do nothing, and it will end up a meaningless gesture.

—

No, not everyone has a right to be violent because it would violate another’s rights. But if someone transgresses your rights and becomes violent toward you, you absolutely do have the right to be violent. So some people have the right to be violent. It is also why we ought to have the right to own weapons.

No one is saying that because it is natural it must be good, or one ought to do something because it is natural. It’s just that human nature is a far better indicator of what rights are necessary to live and enjoy living. It is far better than the circularity of observing law, in my opinion. How do you know whether a legal right is morally right or wrong? How would law make illegal a legal right to own slaves? Were the Nazis innocent because they were just following the law?

Your moral obligations do not make sense to me because they are unjust and born of feelings. They do not consider whether someone is deserving of being lied to, or whether the situation demands that someone lies. Sometimes lying and insult are key to various art forms, like satire, irony, and fiction. It is because of justice, not feelings, that the freedom to speak includes the right to lie and be mean. — NOS4A2

So according to you there are no situations where lying is unjustified and immoral? You mention exceptions to a proposed exception. Reasoning a contrario there is still an exception. Here's an egregious example where I think lying is not justified:

A father rapes his daughter. I know about it but when asked whether he rapes his daughter I say "no".

How do you deal with the above situation according to your ideas?

You refer to justice as a source of rights but I'm not aware of what you consider the nature of justice. I've seen you making appeals to nature, which is a fallacy. You backtrack a bit but then repeat that "human nature is a far better indicator of what righs are necessary to live and enjoy living". So we're back to a fallacy. How do you know when nature isn't a good indicator? It appears to me, what you have is a theory where you arbitrarily decide "ooh, natural" and then when it doesn't give you the result that you want "well, there's still justice" without having any clue what justice is. Basically, you're just making things up as you go along to meet whatever moral intuitions you have.

And then you attribute "feelings" to my position. It's a bit funny really.

Also,

from your list, everybody has a right to eat, drink and breathe. So if you have enough food for two, another starving person has a right to half of it? — Benkei

How do you deal with this?

In the natural state, there's also no property. Which I'm pretty sure you think is rather important.

So according to you there are no situations where lying is unjustified and immoral?

Not according to me because I never said anything close to that.

I've seen you making appeals to nature, which is a fallacy.

I never said something is good or bad because it is natural or unnatural, which is a fallacy. I said nature is a good indicator of what is necessary for survival and to enjoy living. That means simply that nature provides us with evidence.

What is your evidence? What do you observe in order to inform your position? Law? Empathy?

from your list, everybody has a right to eat, drink and breathe. So if you have enough food for two, another starving person has a right to half of it?

Everyone has a right to eat, drink, and breathe. It just means that one should not prohibit another from eating, drinking, and breathing. This is basic stuff.

In the natural state, there's also no property. Which I'm pretty sure you think is rather important.

Sure there is. Men have always occupied land and had their things.

Maybe you missed my questions:

How do you know whether a legal right is morally right or wrong? How would law make illegal a legal right to own slaves? Were the Nazis innocent because they were just following the law?

Civilians should be restricted to revolvers, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles. Any one (or combination) of those is sufficient for home and self-defense. All other firearms should be reserved for police and military. Penalties for possessing any other type of gun should be severe.

Collectivism of the national sort does compel one to conform, and conformity does work well towards “social cohesion”. Many embrace it as it can give one a sense of belonging in an otherwise alienating world. — NOS4A2

That sense of belonging and social cohesion is important in an otherwise alienating world, especially when we inherently have different ideas of how things should be and we actually might not share much in common with others.

But wherever a group is represented in people’s minds through its more salient features, whether it be shared government, religion, race, and so on, those features will invariably be used against that group in a fashion that blinds one to the unique and original characteristics of any individual person. — NOS4A2

Invariably?

One could argue that invariably every idea considered moral or just can be abused. Yet that doesn't give us much.

One need not adopt another collective myth to find affinity with other others, especially one that is exclusive to a vast majority of human beings. — NOS4A2

And what would be that kumbayah-thing? I don't think "my-myself-and-I" would be that.

I guess they finally got something moving...

Washington state has now banned selling assault weapons
^{— KING 5 Seattle · Apr 25, 2023}

Small steps...?

Washington state has now banned selling assault weapons
— KING 5 Seattle · Apr 25, 2023 — jorndoe

Good news! Yet... I am wondering if the Supreme Court would declare that law as "unconstitutional", when the judges will experience the pressure by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE),

guns kill. No guns doesn't kill. End of discussion.

Two weeks after mass shootings shook their country, Serbians have surrendered more than 15,000 weapons, more than 2,500 explosive devices, and hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition, as part of a month-long amnesty announced by the government. — CNN

Something similar happened in Australia in 1996 after the Port Arthur Massacre.

Other countries respond to mass shootings in a way that the USA never does - because of the dogma about the right of gun ownership being equated with freedom.

Ideas have consequences.

Other countries respond to mass shootings in a way that the USA never does - because of the dogma about the right of gun ownership being equated with freedom. — Wayfarer

Not only that.

Also because Americans think they have to have a gun to protect their home from criminals. Not for hunting (although there are people still living in the countryside) and for a shooting hobby. Hence there can be a lot of Americans that own a firearm, but never use it and aren't actually so familiar in it's use.

Guns are often justified for 'self protection', but: