Scalia is a piece of crap.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is not the process by which life was formed.

I'm assuming Berz to mean create life, as in create human life. I don't think he necessarily wants to give animals rights.

Whats yer point? That you aren't an independent actor? Otherwise that aint a rebuttal...

Basically that humans aren't as much of independent actors as you like to believe. They are products of their own society and, furthermore, require a society to survive (especially in the early years). We can say that humans are independent actors within the contexts of their society, but to call them fully independent is... well, a bit of fantasy, IMO.

OTOH, if I indulge you and say that humans are fully independent actors (with no constraints or nudging by society), why does that automatically mean that individuals have moral claims? I don't see why you get a prize simply because you've managed to survive.

You gotta be kidding. What'd they have? Some WWI rifles?

I can bet you that technological progress has benefited the military much more than the normal citizenry.

[DinoDoc]

We've sent people like Celine Dion ...

Isn't he laying out a case for war right there? Isn't Celine Dion considered a war crime?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Maybe you have no imagination. If I was running China's invasion, I'd nuke the US navy and air bases so they can't bother my invasion force. After that the US military would bleed into the general population to organize the resistance and await the actual invasion.

Why are the Chinese invading again? Why are all of the US assets easy to nuke unlike now? Why is noone else doing anything to stop millions of Chinese from crossing the entire Pacific to mount an invasion?

Anyway, I believe what I said was that our nation, armed with personal weapons and nukes deter invasions with or without the bulk of the military.

As Imran, Agathon and now Spiffor have pointed out, personal firearms aren't going to do much to stop a determined, well equipped military force. Assuming the Chinese are so pissed off or so conquest-hungry that they've decided to nuke the US military as best they can, saddle up God knows how many hundreds of thousands or millions of troops and cross the Pacific, do you really think the prospect of personal firearms is going to cause them to call the whole thing off? Beyond that, why do you need to have everyone owning a gun before hand? Why can't the government/military/whomever just distribute them en masse in the face of an attack? I don't think the Japanese civilians were armed to the tits prior to the US contemplating the invasion of the home islands during WWII, but the US sure figured on meeting stiff resistance if they tried.

[Kuciwalker]

The best question is, why is anyone even reading Berz's posts anymore?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The best question is, why is anyone even reading Berz's posts anymore?

Because, while we might not always agree with him, he is a decent guy, often has an unusual perspective, and is honest and consistent about his beliefs.

Same goes for Ben.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Lets say our gov't went whacko and the military followed orders and we were at war with our gov't and military. Who would win? The people would win...if they have guns. Its just a matter of attrition and time... There is a reason why tyrants always try to disarm the peasants, aint always possible, but dictators dont like armed populations. If Hitler was faced with two options - invade a neighbor without guns and a neighbor with guns, guess who gets invaded?

Both.

An armed populace is no guarantee against dictatorship. The people will only win, in the long run, if the military either turns its guns around or if the military refuses to engage in the tactics necessary to win against an insurgency, which is scorched earth. Armed populaces are beaten down all the time. The Salvadoran people, the Mexican people, etc. Under Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people had guns . . . what do you think they're using against us!?! The difference between us and these other countries is we aren't willing to murder, out right, entire villages until the insurgency is defeated. Fortunately, our population isn't ready to take that step yet.

[Aeson]

Besides, the American public is easily subdued. Shiny objects and foreign bogeymen are much more effective at that than guns.

[chequita guevara]

true

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Wezil

But they are common, no one wants to be murdered. The fact hypocrites ignore the moral authority of others to live doesn't mean natural rights dont exist. It means murderers are hypocrites.

But I can cite cultures where it was perfectly acceptable (even expected and legal - ie not murder) to kill strangers. They obviously weren't aware that the right to live is a self-evident natural right (despite what the stranger thought).

Why? Most cultures have been authoritarian based on might, not whats right. But when the King and his soldiers rode around killing peasants, you can be damn sure those peasants had a moral claim to exist. Its self-evident, thats why damn near everyone is repulsed by murderers. Not because society told us to be repulsed, but because we know we have a moral claim to exist. Do you, Wezil? If I walk up and threaten to kill you, wouldn't you be "justified" in stopping me? Of course... Thats self evident, not a product of societal training.

I have no need to appeal to natural law. Positive law will cover me.

I didn't create myself...Whomever or whatever did left behind a design written in our consciousness...

And that is where the concept of natural law ultimately fails. The proof of common beliefs (self-evident or "written in") to support the concept is slim.

I think the idea of natural rights can serve a useful purpose (they give us something to strive for or protect - a purpose if you will) but are really no more than our best hopes or intentions.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Aeson
Besides, the American public is easily subdued. Shiny objects and foreign bogeymen are much more effective at that than guns.

*bristles with rage*

Oi! What do you mean "shiny obj-" oooh... iPhone!

BRB

[Krill]

I thought the iPhone was matte?

[Berzerker]

KonTiki

Why are the Chinese invading again?

They want are land, what does it matter?

Why are all of the US assets easy to nuke unlike now?

Because we have no nukes to retaliate with and 1/3 of the conventional forces. How ya gonna stop the Chinese from nuking our forces and their bases?

Why is noone else doing anything to stop millions of Chinese from crossing the entire Pacific to mount an invasion?

You mean like people with guns? Now thanks to yer plan you gotta ask other countries for help.

As Imran, Agathon and now Spiffor have pointed out, personal firearms aren't going to do much to stop a determined, well equipped military force.

Nukes will... Why do you and Spiffor keep forgetting that?

Kuci

The best question is, why is anyone even reading Berz's posts anymore?

Because yers suck obviously

and TY Aggie

Imran

I'm assuming Berz to mean create life, as in create human life. I don't think he necessarily wants to give animals rights.

I meant what I said, evolution did not create life.

Basically that humans aren't as much of independent actors as you like to believe.

What I like to believe? Yer just giving me the same argument Imran, I already know humans are social critters. That doesn't change the fact you are an independent actor. If you die - YOU die. Society aint goin with ya.

if I indulge you and say that humans are fully independent actors (with no constraints or nudging by society) why does that automatically mean that individuals have moral claims? I don't see why you get a prize simply because you've managed to survive.

It aint a prize, its a claim backed by morality. If you and I were the only people in the world and we met and I tried to kill you, would you be justified in defending yourself? That justification is a valid claim of moral authority to defend your natural right to live.

I can bet you that technological progress has benefited the military much more than the normal citizenry.

Thats nice, but you said this

I believe the French country folk were no less armed than the US today

The French didn't have nukes, we do

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, I'm curious as to what you mean by this. It is clear what you mean by "part" when you suggest that my bones are a part of me, because the notion of physical parts is uncontroversial (unless you are an Eleatic). But natural rights can't be a part in the same way, because you can cut a bone in half, but you can't cut a natural right in half.

True. It's the same with personhood. You can't be half a person or 3/5ths of a person, or even almost a person. You are either a person or you are not.

This is what I mean by natural rights. They are just as much a part of you as say your personality or your thoughts. You cannot separate a person apart from their natural rights, even though you cannot see them or deal with them, they are an extension of personhood in this regard.

Natural rights, if they exist, seem to be metaphysically queer entities (gay mafia shut up - this is a different use of the term). There are of course other candidates for metaphysically queer entities, such as thoughts or numbers (if you are a platonist with a small "p").

Yes, that is exactly how I was perceiving them. I was alluding to platonic forms when I spoke earlier about how civil society is a reflection of these ideals. We cannot get them quite perfect, because they are always only a reflection. There is, in effect a "form" if I can call it that of "natural rights", that apply to all persons. Everyone who is a person has some concept and understanding of them, even if our understanding is imperfect and distorted, it is still there.

But even then, natural rights don't seem to be as clear as those. Both thoughts and numbers, if they are beings are things. Thoughts may well be states rather than substances, and numbers quantities rather than substances. But you said that rights are like substances. Even if they aren't, they don't seem to be qualities, quantities, relations or entities from any other recognizable table of categories.

No, they are more properties of personhood so to speak. They are like colours. They have no 'functional' effect, nor do they impair the operation of things, but we perceive them very clearly.

That's why philosophers tend to treat rights claims as statements which we have reasons to endorse. For example, Kant argues that murder can't be justified because it contains a contradiction. That doesn't mean that our right to life is a thing, but merely that "murder is right" is a proposition that violates norms of rationality.

Kant is merely asserting one principle, that natural rights as a whole ought to be a self-consistant body. He is seeing them as a organic whole, where all the parts have to be functioning properly in order for anything at all to work. I would definitely agree with his conclusion, and this is one test that we can use to decide whether something is or is not a natural right. If it conflicts with other ones, then it cannot be a natural right.

The rightness and wrongness of actions are determined by reason, not by magical entities.

I would dispute that. Rightness and wrongness simply are, regardless of the presence of reason or not. It's like saying to someone who is colourblind, that certain colours no longer exist, but we no that is simply a fault in perception. Natural laws do not cease to exist simply because the subject cannot percieve them or is irrational, it is simply an error in perception.

If we take this a step further, we can see that rationality is the effect of these natural laws. It is because they can be understood through reason that we are given the facilities in order to understand them through reason. Reason is a tool, not a master, some things can be well understood through reason, but there are limitations.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I like how it's taken as a given that the Chinese are going to invade. Just like 50 years ago it was the Germans were literally on our doorstep. And then during the Cold War the Russkies were right off the shores ready to paratroop into our high schools.

Honestly, it's entertaining how kneejerk paranoid Americans can be. And then they turn around and accuse the Chinese government of being dangerously irrational.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Within a society of actors. At the very least, you have your mom and dad (and good thing because you'd die without their nurture), so you are really never alone unless later on you decide to go on some isolated island... then you can create rules for that society of one if you choose.

This isn't even absolute or "self-evident". Plenty of cultures engaged in infanticide.